Dare the Republicans to dramatically raise health insurance premiums on many voters.

Government shutdown might be a good strategy for the Democrats, but they could get the blame from voters.

Another strategy would be to let the Republicans have their way which would cause lots of people's health insurance premiums to skyrocket. This could turn many more voters against the Republicans.

At some point, I hope enough Republicans can side with Democrats to curb absolute presidential power.

It does look like the president is accumulating absolute authority. At the national level, we are pretty close to a dictatorship of executive orders. Congress and Supreme Court have been allowing this.

If enough Republicans, in Congress, vote with the Democrats on certain measures to curb presidential power, that could still limit the president. This means there is still power in taking moderate positions that can bring a few Republicans to side with the Democrats.

As for more far to the left Democrats, the Democrats need all the votes they can get. The big tent should try and be as inclusive as it can, but a strategy of moderate votes can gain traction in the current situation.

My personal lifestyle is still quite different than mainstream American consumerism, for the most part. It may be radical in a different way. Not traditionally far to the left, but it's still outside the norm. In the long run, I still think things like my own lifestyle of minimalism are the best roads to a sustainable future. I may be bias to my own lifestyle, but that seems like the best somewhat radical strategy. It's radical in a different way than most people's definition of the radical side of left politics.

I'd never heard of Jimmy Kimmel till this controversy. I don't watch regular TV.

I never heard of Jimmy Kimmel till this recent controversy since I don't watch regular TV. Glad he's back. Now I read his comeback show had 6.3 million viewers on network TV in spite of Sinclair stations refusing it.

Even more impressive was over 26 million people across social media platforms like YouTube. The media landscape is evolving.

Photos from my latest bicycle / transit tours now on Flickr.

Sculpture made from railroad fasteners near bicycle trail in Redmond, WA.

Photos from my latest tour here

A link to very interesting TED Talk on autism or better called neurodiversity.

Autism is in the news. I'm pretty sure I am on the Autism Spectrum. I prefer the term neurodivergent. It can be either a blessing or a curse depending on situation and severity. Neurodiversity can bring outside the box insights as well.

At Senior Center, we have TED Talk events where a TED talk is shown on a big screen and then people discuss it. Very interesting as the topic was autism / neurodiversity. It's not always a curse.

Here is another interesting TED Talk video I just found.

It's harder for compassionate Democrats to say no to more folks though saying yes might sink the whole lifeboat.

In a New York Times editorial by Josh Barro, I read that unauthorized immigrant population exploded to 14 million in 2023 from 10.5 million in 2021 during Biden's presidency. Democrats still get blame, but I look deeper at a dilemma that many countries face around the world; the overwhelming number of folks needing help and safety among the over 8 billion people in this world.

It's harder for the Democrats to say no to people from places like Haiti and Afghanistan. It's like the dilemma faced by people on a lifeboat who fear that saving more people will lead to the sinking of the lifeboat.

Many from Afghanistan helped Americans during that war and would face persecution if sent back; for instance.

Still, if not the actual amount of room in the lifeboat, at least the political fortunes of the Democratic Party sink when compassion stretches the situation with housing, infrastructure, traffic and so forth.

In Christianity, the Sermon on the Mount seems to call for a radical form of compassion, but the reality of people and politics, around the world, is much more limited.

Restricting supply at the producer level tends to drive consumers to right wing populism.

I tend to favor ways to reduce reduce carbon footprint from the consumption side. Things like encouraging home solar, public transit and planning that creates less sprawl.

Lots of other people try to constrict consumption at the production level. Things like regulating the businesses that produce the products such as housing and gasoline.

Problem is, when supply is tight, it tends to drive grassroots populism to the right, rather than to the left.

I would think that, in an ideal world, limited supply would push people toward progressive innovations such as alternative energy and alternative lifestyles, but it seems like the opposite is the case. In much of the world, populism tends to double down on the things people feel that they need to live in today's world. Frustration and lack of a big picture perspective often pushes people to the right.

Pendulums do swing so after a turn to the right, sometimes right wing leaders get into trouble after they become incumbents. Frustrated people turn on incumbents. Looks like Trump is now dropping in the polls.

What is the money based on. It's based on people's willingness to provide goods and services for the money.

People often discuss what our money is based on. Some say it once was based on the gold standard. It's now what's called a "fiat currency" whose value comes from the trust and confidence people place in the issuing government rather than from a physical commodity like gold.

Lots of people don't have faith in our current government; especially the leadership, but money still works. I say money is based on the goods and services it buys. That's the true economy. It's the goods and services people are willing to provide for the money. One can't eat money, itself. Money is just a system of accounting. It's the actual goods and services that makes up the economy.

The Federal Reserve can just create the money, but that's just numbers, like moving a decimal point over in a computer.

More money doesn't necessarily mean more goods and services. It can just mean inflating the cost of existing goods and services. The whole thing is a balancing act, but the true economy is the goods and services. People tend to forget that, in my opinion.

Often new money does help resolve bottlenecks and greases the economy. It can spur the development of new facilities to help a growing economy. Other times it can be more problem than it's worth. It's a balancing act.

The economy is things like labor, technology, expertise, land, natural resources and so forth.

Expectations are part of the equation as well; at least the equation for satisfaction. If expectations are too high, people can feel impoverished. Expectations can drive us to strive for more, but expectations can also be a burden. It's another balancing act.

If a day was devoted to Charles Kirk, would there be days for others of different political persuasions?

I follow the mainstream news, but have avoided participating in the shouting about the killing of Charlie Kirk. It is too bad that he was shot. Still, I don't see it as the fault of either the left or right side of the political spectrum. It's more about anger and another deranged gunman.

On a local note, I read that Lynden Schoolboard tabled a resolution to devote a day in the calendar to Kirk. I think if they were devote such a day, there are many other people who should have days in the calendar.

Obviously, to be fair, some folks on the left side of the political spectrum should have a day. Yes, there is the national holiday for Martin Luther King and there is also a holiday for Columbus, which some folks don't like so they wish to rededicate that holiday as "Indigenous People's Day."

In an ideal world, there could be a day for everyone, but there are only 365 days in a year. There's limited resources (days) to work with or fight over.

My grade school, in Pullman, WA. was named for the great inventor Thomas Edison. To be fair, maybe they should name a school for Nikola Tesla who was an ingenious propionate for alternating current.

In the early years of electricity, Edison insisted on sticking with DC current, instead of AC because that's what his powerplants were built for. Edison had so much money already invested in the old system that he resisted the change. In the long run AC current proved much better for building the power grids that we use today, however.

Deflation isn't all bad. In the electronics industry, it means prices go down and quality goes up with time. People buy anyway.

I hear that economists dread deflation. "Heaven forbid, consumerism might slow down and put folks out of work as people postpone purchasing to wait for lower prices."

The electronics industry has thrived in spite of deflation there. Computing prices come down, but people still buy cause the new stuff is more powerful than the old stuff. Imagine that, lower prices and better products to boot.

Fossil fuel industry may go the way of Polaroid.

The fossil fuel industry could go the way of Kodak and Polaroid when they failed to adapt to digital photography.

In the past, people might have accused me of being an apologist for that industry as I thought they were trying to adapt to clean energy sourcing when British Petroleum changed it's name to "Beyond Petroleum."

I thought consumers were more to blame being slow to adopt alternatives, thus driving market forces.

Now, in the era of Trump, it looks like the establishment is rededicating America to a fossil fuel economy. Stupid.

I can see the reality that fossil fuel infrastructure is still useful given the way things are today. It can maybe even be somewhat beneficial to the environment such as replacing coal with natural gas, or replacing dirty overseas fossil fuel with fuel produced in USA under higher environmental standards; for production at least.

Still, carbon dioxide looks and smells deceptively clean, but mass production of carbon dioxide, by consumers burning fossil fuels drives climate change.

Maybe positive tipping points toward clean energy worldwide while US government on a backslide.

We hear about negative tipping points bringing climate change. Now there is a more optimistic book out called "Positive Tipping Points." "How to fix the climate crisis." Author interviewed on the BBC. I link in comments.

Worldwide, lots of progress is being made. Electric car sales are way up in places like China and Norway. Batteries and solar panels are getting better and less expensive.

The US government is sliding backwards, but much of the rest of the world is still changing. This could leave US in economic problems which eventually would cause even the backwater US to change for the sake of its economy. Around the world, renewable is getting less expensive and better over time.

Search for BBC The Climate Question Show, Sept. 14 2025.

Washington State pays the price for addressing climate change.

Washington's cap and trade system to reduce fossil fuel use is designed to ratchet up tighter each year. That is to gradually ween the state off of fossil fuel use. The law seems to be moving faster toward the goal of reducing fossil fuel use than a lot of the people are ready for, I guess. Thus some folks complaining about the high gas prices.

I think a carbon tax is a better idea than cap and trade. It's simpler and easier to understand. It does, however have a similar affect to make fossil fuel more expensive and transfer some of the money to developing an economy with a lower carbon footprint.

The regular gas tax has gone up also. Somebody has to pay for the roads and road building is expensive.

Image from KIRO Radio.

It's natural to have some wealth inequality, but USA has gone too far down that road like a runaway train.

The US is becoming an oligarchy instead of a democracy?

When there is private ownership of business, either large or small, there is going to be owners of the business itself who have more wealth than the average household. That's to be expected, but the concentration of extreme wealth at the very top is out of balance. It's like a runaway train set in motion by mostly Republican political forces and other conditions in society.

Search for Sept. 15 2025 NPR Morning Edition.

I heard an interview with the author of the book "Tomorrow is Yesterday."

Clear down to the grassroots level, it seems like the majority of the Palestinians and the majority of the Israelis actually do hate one another. I'd guess there are many exceptions to the majority opinions on both sides, but why has the Two State Peace Process not worked so far?

On NPR, I heard about a new book, "Tomorrow is Yesterday."

It seems like too much resentment is remembered from past wrongs. There is a lack of forgiveness and more of an interest in retribution among the bulk of people. Both sides have totally different goals.

I'd add that the the land area is very small. Two populations full of resentments are trying to share and divide up a space smaller than just a few counties here in Washington State.

On September 13 2025 Weekend Edition Saturday. One can search for interview on NPR.

Seems like the more we complain about income inequality, the worse it gets.

In spite of many decades that people have been complaining about US income and wealth inequality, the problem is getting worse. The rhetoric, most people use against it, doesn't seem to work. Other strategies might work better; like talking about how we can build a sustainable economy, given the environmental restraints of planet earth. This could, ironically, bring us closer to income equality through an indirect approach.

We need to talk more about how much we worship money versus other qualities of life such as community connection and health.

Ironically, I think more focus on these deeper issues would bring us more wealth and income equality. For instance talking about planning topics so a place to call home can be affordable.

We need to discuss more about whether the goals and aspirations of our lives are really bringing us a sense of fulfilment and peace of mind. Not that everyone will think alike. Each of us have our own stories, but these deeper questions, about our lives and society, need to be talked about more on the political campaign trails.

Identity politics or kitchen table topics.

Quite a few people think the Democratic Party should focus less on identity politics and more on kitchen table topics; whatever that means. Yes, I think figuring out planning so our lives can function is needed. We need to be discussing housing, transportation, water, energy and so forth. Nuts and bolts topics.

Identity politics is important, but maybe second to figuring out how we can make our society function for the bulk of the people.

Minority views and alternative lifestyles can help. They can provide more than just another burdensome set of demands. Mainstream society is getting more unsustainable. We need alternative innovations.

Is it overpopulation, or just not enough parking for all the cars? Resentment against immigration is being driven by all these factors.

Amazing how much traffic there is everywhere. There are bike lanes, but wow, I never fail to be impressed by the volume of traffic.

Yes, I think overpopulation is the main driver of anti immigrant resentment. Our spaces are getting more crowded. It isn't just the number of people, which have doubled since my college days, but more importantly the number of cars. I ask AI. A 400% increase worldwide since 1975. The number of cars on the road worldwide has grown from approximately 300 million in 1975 to nearly 1.5 billion today, an increase of about 400%. This growth has been driven primarily by rising incomes and urbanization in emerging economies in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. My interpretation below.

In US it hasn't changed that much except nearly doubling population so doubling number of cars. We were car dependent in 1975 also.

Thinking of climate change, the rest of the world has changed more dramatically pushing that worldwide average to 400% more cars since 1975. This is why we notice climate change now, when back in 1975 it was hardly an issue. Scientists knew it would come, but people tend to think about short term needs more than what might happen 50 years down the road.

Back then, they thought oil would run out, but then we figured out how to extract it from shale. Now the climate effect is 400% more. Climate change has arrived.

Number of cars is also an indicator of overall consumption in homes and other areas. Growing world prosperity and demands which are double the underlying population growth. Another figure effecting our lives; housing cost.

I wrote this on Facebook during my September 2025 transit / bicycle tour. Now transfering to my blog. Amazing how much traffic there is on Everett Bothell Highway near 405! Glad there is a shoulder, but I never fail to be amazed how car dependent people are!

Substack may fit me better than Blue Sky as an alternative to Facebook.

I find I haven't been using the Blue Sky social media platform. Facebook still brings the response. Other platforms have less momentum of engagement. Also Blue Sky's limit of 300 characters is too confining for my nuance. It's more an alternative to Twitter than Facebook and I don't use Twitter.

Recently, I've started learning about Substack. From what I gather, it's like a blog space / social media with room for nuance. A difference from Facebook is the revenue to run the platform coming from subscriptions instead of advertising. Less, or no, pressure from advertising to drive algorithms seeking just clickbait.

One can still have and follow blogs on Substack without subscription, but the more popular blogs, I guess, will generate a cut of subscription revenue for the platform so it can run without the problem of ad driven algorithms.

I think that's correct, but I'm still learning about it.

It seems like a good idea to me. I'd say, "let the popular celebrities like Taylor Swift or Kim Kardashian (I'm being a bit cynical) bring in the revenue to pay the bills while the rest of us can go along for the ride."

I know there are also lots of real thought provoking celebrities, like astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson and economist Paul Krugman, who may have many paid subscribers as well.

For me, the important part is to be able to participate in meaningful conversation, even at a small scale in terms of celebrity status.

The masses of consumers use more resources than the small number of billionaires, but the billionaires are bad leaders, leading consumers to ecological doom.

We could remove the small number of billionaires, but the pollution causing outputs from the companies that they are invested in would still be demanded by the much larger number of consumers. The investments would just be transferred, so it's shuffling deckchairs. Mass consumption uses most of the resources.

Yes, I do think the billionaires have greater influence in society than ordinary individuals. They have been bad leaders. The whole value system, based too much on money versus other values in life, is corrupt.

The sand battery for heat storage. Another good reason for compact, campus style development versus sprawl.

I read that Finland now has a sand battery in use for storing heat from intermittent energy sources; such as solar energy. This can work well for district heating systems; such as central steam heating systems on university campuses.

Excess power, from solar panels during sunny daylight hours, can be used to heat the sand. Sand is easier to work with than water at higher temperatures; otherwise they would just use water, I guess. When water is heated, it becomes pressurized. Sand can be heated to over 1,000 degrees F.

At night, air can be circulated through the hot sand and then go to a heat exchanger to heat water. Hot water is then piped to buildings that are close to one another similar to the steam / hot water systems on many college campuses. This system could fit into an already existing district heat system, like I would guess at a college campus.

This could fit into my philosophy of more compact city planning, versus spread out sprawl. Using a sand battery in a sprawling area would be more difficult due to bringing hot water out to each house. That would imply using it to generate electricity to send longer distances. I think generating electricity from the stored heat would add another layer of complexity.

Just moving the heat itself into an already existing heat distribution system; such as a district heating system for a campus, would be easier. This heat battery could also be used for some industrial processes as well.

Feedback loop and the runaway train.

I tend to blame ordinary people's lifestyles, consuming habits and voting patterns for our problems; for the most part. Institutions and corporations follow the mass market, but they do amplify the trends in a feedback loop. Advertising, lobbying and money plays a big role in that feedback loop.

Now it looks like USA is a runaway train toward right wing authoritarianism, that most people don't want. Much of this, the law of unintended consequences. As the situation gets obvious, hopefully more people are now pushing the train in a different direction. People tend to respond to crisis. Pendulums tend to swing.

Blaming corporations has been associated with the left, but it recently has fueled right wing populism as well.

For most of our economic and social problems, I tend to blame people's behavior, in mass. Other folks tend to blame institutions such as corporations and / or government.

Recently much of the blame against corporations which has traditionally been thought of as being from the left, has shifted to being from the right. Lots of blame now comes from the right against corporate elites, government elites and so forth. The right has always tended to blame government while the left blames business, but now blame of both fuels the right.

Yes, some blame can be laid on elites and institutions, but I think this wholescale hostility and trashing of our institutions can, ironically, bring us to a more authoritarian society.

Are 76% of Americans living with chronic conditions? Maybe no one to blame. Is it a result of people living longer?

The figure of around 76% US population having chronic disease has surfaced in Kennedy's testimony to Congress. Again, the blame game is going. He wants to blame former management of CDC as the rate is higher now than it was in the 1950s and 60s.

Back then, our population was younger so maybe it's no one's fault. A higher percent of our population is older and more vulnerable to chronic disease, now than back then. I would also blame sedentary lifestyles. One can also wonder where he got those figures. Did he pull them out of a hat? If I were secretary of health, I would try and get more people to ride bicycles instead of driving cars. Diet and lots of other factors are there also, but plain age is a big factor. People are living longer. Maybe more people are surviving with their chronic diseases when they would have been dead and not counted in the population before.

Is medicine saving lives looked at as a good thing or a bad thing?

Maybe a bad thing if more people are surviving with diseases and thus being counted in the statistics with those conditions.

Somehow, I think that could be considered a good thing. Positive spin, or negative spin.

I think blaming is one of our culture's biggest problems. Is it big pharma, politicians or space aliens that have caused our health problems? I doubt it. Maybe it's stress from all that finger pointing.

Our standard of living today versus 1970s, like comparing apples to oranges.

Has our standard of living improved, or decreased since the 1970s? It's really a case of comparing apples to oranges.

If things like the smartphone's capabilities are counted as wealth, smartphone owners would be able to afford greater information capabilities than multi billion dollar institutions, such as NASA, could afford in the 1970s.

At the same time, something as mundane as having a place to live is less affordable. The capabilities of the smartphone isn't being counted in the GDP the same way that it would have been in the 1970s. Rather than counting it as a multi-million dollar facility, the smartphone can be worth less than one month's rent for a small apartment.

While we have lots more wealth of information at our fingertips, we have to push the economy faster and faster just to keep up with certain necessities that were more taken for granted back in the 1970s.

If one is making their living by selling smartphones, how many does one have to crank out just to pay the rent?

The economy needs to keep running faster and faster just to justify our place on this planet; thus harming us and the planet.

Somehow, we need to find a better way to count the advances we have made, over the years, as wealth.

People fear that taxing the rich will slow the economy. That's a reason why it's politically hard to accomplish.

Taxing the rich can affect the consuming habits of consumers when ripple effects are passed down through the economy.

If ordinary people were more willing to accept change, these ripple effects could be seen as short term negatives bringing long term positives. A changed economy could emerge with other benefits. Long term benefits; such as a greener economy, a fairer economy or even a slower economy that is less of a rat race could emerge.

People fear that taxing the rich will slow the economy. Yes, a slower economy is totally feared, but it could have some benefits of its own in preserving the environment and giving people more time for other quality of life things.

These changes wouldn't necessarily all be about a slower economy as higher taxes can lead to many other long term benefits as well. For instance a more educated and healthier workforce. These changes can lead to better infrastructure for things like public transportation. Investing in scientific research can lead to new forms of technology and wealth as well. A higher GDP could still be a result.

Fear of change is one of the things that keeps the current configuration of our mostly capitalist system in power. Without tossing out capitalism altogether, we could have a different society, probably more like life in the Nordic countries; such as Denmark, I guess. Ordinary people would have to be willing to accept the change as well. Lots of ordinary people seem to be holding tightly onto our current consumeristic society.

Just taxing the top and expecting life to remain the same at the bottom doesn't work. Life at the lower levels has to be part of the change as well.

At Generations of Pride in August.

I'm standing by an old truck from the 1940s. We had a little car and bike show. It was this month's Generations of Pride Event where folks from various generations gather. An ice breaker for conversation was to show off a car. They also included bikes so I wasn't left out.

There were quite a few different cars from vintage to a modern all electric truck by Rivian.

My bike isn't fancy, it's more about the story of biking for me. I also showed a sign I made from a picture I took on one of my trips. Passing a tombstone sales yard in Michigan, back in 1991, I saw a sign that said "Drive Carefully, We can Wait."

Poster from that August 2025 event.

Still a problem of too much oil consumption. India buys from Russia and alternative sources don't have it to spare for sale to India.

Seems like our policy for dealing with Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been floundering for a long time.

Countries, like India, still buy oil from Russia. At first Trump's higher tariffs against India trying to push India away from importing Russian oil were praised. Now that policy is being heavily criticized for pushing India away from US and toward China.

In a more ideal world, supplying India with energy would work better than trying to bully them into not buying from Russia. Could we have provided oil and natural gas to India for helping them transition away from Russian oil?

Probably not. We (the US) now produce plenty of oil and natural gas for our own needs, but USA can't really spare it, let alone ship it to India. Maybe Saudi Arabia could have helped more, but probably not.

European nations have done pretty well weaning themselves off Russian oil and natural gas, but they still depend on phosphate fertilizers from Russia.

Russia has lots of natural resources that much of the rest of the world is still dependent on.

Immigration can increase life expectancy in host countries.

I ask a few questions to Google AI wondering how various policies might effect deathrates.

There is an estimate that cuts in USAID could lead to 14 million more deaths between now and 2030.

Then I wondered about whether restrictions on immigration cause an increase in deaths; especially in countries that people are immigrating from. Answers were a bit inconclusive, but I found out an interesting thing.

Deathrates go down in the countries that people immigrate to. In other words immigration to countries, like USA, lower the death rate here. People who make the journey to immigrate tend to be healthier than domestic population. This is the opposite of what many conservatives think when they talk about all the sick people, supposedly, coming to USA. The immigrant population tends to be healthier than native population.

Still, I think the population growth has other negative effects such as increased traffic due US transportation systems based on private automobile ownership. More people could be accommodated here if our lifestyles and planning were more based on alternative transit.

Apparently, around the 1890s and early 1900s, the increased health effect of immigration was not as evident as it is today. European immigrants, coming to USA in those years, suffered from diseases based on crowded tenements in early US industrial cities. 1918 flu epidemic had an effect on that. Some of these results were inconclusive, however.

Maybe that is why there is the perception of unhealthy immigrants. Of course there are always exceptions to every trend.

Health standards are higher, today so the negative health effects of crowded cities has diminished in recent decades, I assume.

Meanwhile we now have the problem of sprawl; rural areas that are getting too crowded for rural planning. For instance areas that are too crowded for septic tanks to work without contaminating groundwater while still being too sparse for sewer systems to be economically viable.

In towns and cities, it makes sense to have a sewage system, but in spread out rural areas, it costs too much. Rural areas are okay with septic tanks until they get a bit too crowded, then they have problems, but they are still too spread out for centralized sewage systems to be viable. It's the cost of laying out sewer and water system pipes to residents spread way apart.

I remember studying these problems in college planning classes way back in the 1970s. It's the problematic "urban / rural" transition zone. Those areas also have a lot home loss due to forest fires encroaching on residential areas. They tend to have problems with traffic congestion as well.

More compact cities and towns tend to accommodate populations in a better way. A lower footprint on the environment as well. Modern sanitation and other building safety improvements has made urban living safer, I'd guess, than especially back in the early 1900s.

Overpopulation, a driver behind US and worldwide resentment toward immigration.

I think one of the reasons why there is resentment to immigration in many countries has to do with population growth.

US population has grown, recently due mostly to immigration, but imagine what it would be like if US population grew as fast as overall world population. Since 1960, world population has grown by 173% while US population (including immigration) has only grown by 116% (I looked up in Google AI).

I think the high footprint of the average American lifestyle makes population growth more of an environmental problem. Imagine what traffic would be like if the American population had grown by 173% since 1960 instead of only 116%.

Now, world population growth is slowing down, but at the same time the average footprint of individuals, worldwide, grows closer to the footprint of the average American. The average footprint of citizens worldwide is still much smaller than Americans, but look at the math. The world is gridlocked if trying to live like Americans.

Does US get too much of the blame for climate change?

Interesting graph showing how much global economy has grown in recent decades. Source World Bank, 2019 data.

I think that growth of the global economy is the main reason why climate change is a big issue today. The global economy is much bigger than it was in 1960.

The US economy has grown also, but it's share of the entire global economy has gone down. Most of the global growth has been elsewhere, where much of the world's large population has risen out of poverty.

Size of the US economy, per person (per capita) is still close to top worldwide, but with only 347 million in US, versus 8 billion people worldwide, the US share of total economic production has gone down as a percent of world economy. Graph from 1960-2019 figures.

My views seen through the lens of my own interpretation.

I think the US gets too much of the blame for climate change, but the blame is somewhat merited as the US is a world leader. The US still sets the pace for much of the world, but the world follows.

I think some of the right wing trend in US is a reaction to being blamed. Human nature tends to rebel against criticism.

Since the last election brought Republicans back into power, the US government has basically given up on trying to address climate change. I think some of the psychology behind this is out of spite; like a kid in the classroom rebelling against being lectured at; especially while carbon emissions, worldwide, have outpaced US emissions.

Blame of US and other rich nations, from a world where carbon emissions are growing worldwide, has contributed to resentment politics and the rise of right wing politics.

Still emissions per person, in US, are among the highest in the world.

Car use, in US is around 92% of surface commutes, home sizes are larger also.

Worldwide, the total problem is bigger due to world population being 8 billion versus just 347 million. I saw, recently that commutes by car are around 51% globally now. Much of the world is now driving cars.

In many cases it is better to vote for the lesser of two evils if someone much worse is the only other viable choice on the ballot.

If Democrats could just get a few more votes in next year's midterms, they could take back the ability of Congress to restrain Trump's dictatorial powers. This, even in spite of Republican dominated Supreme Court. Even moderate Democrats, still backed by capitalistic interests, would make a big difference. A decisive popular popular vote margin in congressional districts can even overcome gerrymanduring.

As for politicians not backed by big money, they don't get name recognition across this big country. I hear that even Bernie Sanders is among the 1%. He has made more headway than other leftwing politicians, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who tend to only appeal in central cities of certain metropolitan areas. Rural people tend to be more conservative. Suburban people are a huge chunk of our population and they tend to be a tossup.

While our current capitalist / government system is not perfect, it does tend to prop up a certain amount of prosperity and convenience for voters across this country. Big changes, such as significantly high carbon taxes / gas taxes to address climate change cause voter rebellion.

Personally, I would like to see a somewhat radically different world that is less dependent on consumerism, private automobiles and things like single family neighborhoods. I would like to see less wealth inequality.

Even big changes in taxes, to tax wealthy folks and corporations more, is likely to have consequences for the consuming and working middle class. I would be okay with many of those changes as I am critical of the large incomes that even non 1% high income professionals make. I notice things like the vast wealth gap between homeowners and renters, for instance.

I tend to be critical of more than just the wealth of business (including corporations that people like to shop at) as I think making changes there would ripple down through the whole system.

Meanwhile, even the middle class and especially upper middle class is likely to want to hold onto the status quo enough to create large pushback against radical change. Incremental change can still work.

Moderate Democrats, even those funded by big money, can at least hold the line against one party, one person rule of Trump.

Today, it seems like our biggest hope, before the next year's midterm election, is for more congressional Republicans to break with Trump. If more Republicans were to side with the block of minority Democrats trying to hold the line in Congress, that would make a big difference. Life in states, with Democratic majorities in state governments, seems to be better as well.

Some people are cynical enough to want to throw out the whole system; thus not even supporting moderate Democrats. I say, about that, "be careful what you ask for as you might get it." Our system, thrown into total chaos and / or complete authoritarian rule, would be very uncomfortable to say the least.