Has the left lost, or can there be a new beginning for the left? Still thinking about consequences from 2024 election almost a year ago.

It seems like much of the traditional left has lost the political debate, but the future isn't necessarily all right wing as things do keep changing. The future is hard to predict, but things keep moving on to new configurations.

Traditional left tended to blame leaders of private sector and government for things like climate change and inequality. At the same time much of the left still followed the cultural patterns of consumerism at the grassroots level. Much of the American Dream, as it's been defined in the past, is no longer viable. New definitions of the dream are needed. Organizations such as Strong Towns (I find on Facebook) offer some new directions that make sense to me.

Addressing climate change seems to contradict the old style American Dream in such things as over dependence on the automobile. Also other aspects of consumerism.

The desire for more income and wealth equity tends to counter people's fixation with celebrities; such as following wealthy entertainers and sports figures. People complain about the wealthy, but then follow the wealthy in sports, movies and so forth. The masses are often manipulated by the wealthy.

Consumerism tends to favor economy of scale which supports large corporations, like Walmart, that can offer consumers low prices yet it also brings concentration of power. Less economy of scale can mean higher prices and less selection, but it might be worth it for other reasons. Reasons such as knowing the owners as neighbors and participants in the community versus absentee landlords across the country or around the world.

Wealth inequality is exacerbated by things like the wealth gap between home ownership and renting.

Wealth inequality is also exacerbated by rising salaries toward the top of professions. This beyond just the 1%, maybe the top 25% is making life harder for the bottom precentiles. High salaries based on bidding wars between organizations for attracting to talent to higher level positions. Executive salaries at KCTS Channel 9 Seattle and many other non profits, private corporations and government agencies are examples. High executive salaries makes running those organizations less viable.

As we keep finding out, populism doesn't always lean toward the left. The idea of the 1% versus the 99% is not a slam dunk winner of elections though it seems like it would be from just looking at those numbers alone.

Populism often leans right as things are more complicated than that. Folks who are still struggling to bring back the old definition of the American Dream, often understand it's pillars of support in our mostly capitalist system. They realize that just taxing business and the super rich will still have consequences felt clear down the food chain; slower economy, lost jobs, higher prices. Taxing business does have consequences for consumers and workers at the grassroots level. We can't "have it all."

Some of the consequences from taxes and regulation are worthy, however. This could be better explained to the American people; for instance higher gas prices, from taxes can help to bring better infrastructure. In the long run, maybe more prosperity, but it's a bit much to expect no short term sacrifice.

Lots of changes need to come to our entire culture from the grassroots level on up. I think these changes can happen as the future tends to always bring new things.

A consequence of cutting red tape and not wanting public input to get in the way of the bulldozers.

I'm more worried about the gerrymandering in various states to rig the 2026 election toward the Republicans than I am about the destruction of the White House's East Wing. I've never heard of the East Wing till now. Many Republicans do seem to want to bulldoze their way to the plan of Project 2025. Partially a reaction against red tape, regulation and public input. It's a mindset that says, "just get it done." Life is usually a tradeoff.

Pinning the blame for who? The shutdown, the debt and the cutbacks. Wishing for the spirit of Simpson Bowles Act.

It seems like the only leverage that the Democrats have, or at least think they have, in the national government is to shut down the government using filibuster rules in the Senate.

Aside from lower court judges that often get overturned by the Republican Supreme Court, Republicans basically run the national government.

I don't know if agreeing to reopen the government is a good strategy, or not, but if the government reopens, the Democrats may have lots of voters on their side. This due to rising cost of health insurance which will likely be blamed on the Republicans because of subsidy cuts to the Affordable Care Act that many Republicans want.

Budget restraint is usually as unpopular as taxes are among voters. Incumbents tend to become unpopular and the Republicans can easily be seen as owning the economy. Unemployment is likely going up while inflation continues.

Another headwind; insurance rates, for homes and businesses is going up, partially due to climate change bringing high waters to some areas and drought, with it's fires, to other areas. This all could lead to populism swinging back toward the Democrats, but now many people fear that Republicans will try to end democracy altogether to maintain their grip on power.

In 2010, during my work as a custodian, I remember having chats with my modest and thoughtful boss about something called the Simpson Bowles Act to try and reduce the federal debt.

Modest surroundings from behind the scenes where I worked as a custodian.

Sitting behind his hand-me-down desk in his spartan, basement office, he would say he liked divided government. Neither party should have too much power. Compromise can be a good thing. Simpson Bowles never passed, but it was an attempt to compromise.

In earlier years, both Democrats and Republicans were able to compromise on measures that kept Social Security solvent with a combination of modest tax increases and spending discipline. Today, it seems like giving an inch toward any compromise is feared.

A more accurate yardstick for measuring the distance to stars in our galaxy.

Launched by European Space Agency, the GAIA spacecraft used triangulation, like a surveyor's scope, to measure the distance to stars; a technique called "Stellar Parallax." It had a very successful 10 1/2 year run till the fuel for positioning it ran out.

I first learned about Stellar Parallax in freshman astronomy classes.

Stars are so far that distances can't be measured easily. Using the entire earth as a baseline between two telescopes, one can measure out to just a few stars.

Even using the entire earth's orbit, from one side of the sun to the other, will only measures out a bit farther.

Our solar system is orbiting the galaxy, so that creates an even longer baseline.

Gaia operated for slightly over 10 years so our solar system has traveled far as it orbits around the center of our galaxy. That, combined with ever more accurate measuring technology, allows us to measure the distance to many more stars.

This provides better data points for extrapolating the size of things in the universe such as galaxies. It also tells us more about stars, how bright they are and so forth, now that we have more accurate ways of measuring the distance to them.

In the past, most of our distance estimates were extrapolations using other techniques, such as "standard candle brightness," extrapolated from the smaller data set of more accurate parallax measurements.

Ya, I'm probably getting into the weeds now, over people's heads on the technical.

I think I understand it, for the most part, myself. My college astronomy classes continue to come to life as improved technologies enhance the research being done.

Decades ago, I had a fantasy about sending a space probe way out beyond the solar system to create a long baseline back to earth for measuring parallax. Turns out that might not be necessary since our travel, through the galaxy, is creating that baseline, over the years, anyway. No need to send out that spacecraft, Earth, itself, is doing the travelling.

In our orbit around the galaxy, the earth and solar system is traveling at 514,000 miles per hour.

Meanwhile, the Voyager 1 spacecraft, heading out from the solar system, is only traveling at 38,000 miles per hour. Voyager 1 doesn't measure parallax to stars anyway. It does other things.

Our solar system, itself, is traveling so fast around the galaxy that if something on earth was going that fast, it would be going around 142 miles per second, yet it still takes around 230 million years to complete 1 orbit around the galaxy.

Imagine how big the galaxy is.

Voyager 1 travels approximately 10 miles per second. It was launched clear back in 1977 and is just about to reach the "one light day" distance from us.

These calculations, I got from AI and using my hand held calculator.

Now you may have forgotten what I was starting to write about.

One point should not make or break everything, unless it is a winner take all situation.

One reason why I tend to avoid competitive sports is the winner take all situation. The Seattle Mariners lost their bid to the World Series by 1 point.

1 trivial, measly point can make, or break the outcome. Those who follow the Mariners had, at least, a good season.

Now, I wish national politics could go back to being less of a winner take all situation.

A sports cliffhanger is a source of anxiety that I can avoid.

Whether Seattle Mariners win today and make it to the World Series is a nailbiter.

I tend to not follow sports so it's a cliffhanger source of anxiety that I don't really need. There's plenty of problems in the world such as the outcome of nailbiter elections that matter more to my life. Sports is basically just a game among multi millionaires.

Yes, it would be nice if the team got to World Series as it's the closest big city to me plus the only team that hasn't been there yet, but in the big scheme of things it doesn't make a lot of difference to me.

If we are to blame industry, rather than people, the US auto industry is more to blame for climate change than the oil industry.

Some people tend to blame fossil fuel industry for climate change. I tend to blame consumption more than production, but if we are to blame industry, I blame the automobile industry more.

Around half of all new cars, sold in China, are electric. If it wasn't for import restrictions, less expensive electric cars would be available here. The American auto industry would be devastated. This includes many union jobs as well, so that's why it's not happening.

Then there is the power grid. Suddenly flooding the market with electric cars would require upgrades there.

I still think alternative transit is more the solution, but solutions are usually a mix of many strategies.

As for oil industry destroying the public transit that we had many years back, I think the auto industry is more to blame.

I've seen videos, made in the 1950s by General Motors. Back then, there were a lot of different kinds of busses, trolleys and trains in our cities. Some were electric, others diesel.

This patchwork of largely private systems was starting to fall into disrepair. The automobile and interstate highway system was on the rise. GM and others had plans to standardize buses for simpler maintenance. One style of bus with standardized parts.

They pushed diesel, instead of electric, for more flexibility as electric could not go away from the overhead wires. They also could make a profit selling the standardized buses.

As suburbs spread out, the diesel buses could follow while electric was confined to major routes along the wire. I would guess another factor is that overhead wiring is seen as unsightly.

I remember, during my childhood, seeing electric buses in Seattle with the driver outside the bus using a long pole to reattach the bus to the overhead wires. Back then, the connections weren't as reliable as today.

At the start of my college days, Seattle was removing overhead transit wires, but reversed that process when the 1970s oil crisis hit. By the mid 1970s, Seattle decided to keep and even add to it's electric bus system which works well today.

A feat for humanity that even Trump can't stop.

An unbelievable feat for humanity. If all goes according to plan, even Trump can't stop it's trajectory. Voyager 1 will be 1 light day, approximately 16 billion miles away from Earth on November 15, 2026 — the equivalent of one light-day.

It will be that far out even if plans to continue monitoring it's signal, from Earth, run afoul of Trump's budget cuts or technical malfunctions ending the radio connection. The spacecraft will still be travelling out there.

I'm not hearing of any plans to stop monitoring it's signal to save a few cents, but other scientific research can be on the table. Whether it's radio will keep functioning another year is a question, but it seems to be hanging in there so far, in spite a some glitches along the way.

Even Trump can't reach out and stop the spacecraft, that was launched in 1977 hurtling out from the solar system.

Amazing that they still can pick up it's faint signal. It's still doing research, though most of the instruments, such as the camera, have been powered down due to less energy from it's plutonium batteries.

Trump can be a king when Republican majorities in Congress and the Supreme Court rubber stamp what he wants.

A big problem with Trump is that the Republican majorities in Congress and the Supreme Court seem to act, most of the time, like a rubber stamp approving anything the president wants. This president can be a dictator or a king if allowed. I hope the No Kings Rallies are well attended and peaceful.

Fighting fire with fire usually never works for overcoming oppression.

It seems like violence is a bad strategy for oppressed people to use, yet it's a common practice. Hamas's brutal attack on innocent civilians, in Israel on that October 7th, brought a response from the far more powerful Israeli military. Hamas ended up on the loosing side.

Netanyahu is also like a bully and he has far more military power than Hamas. Many Israeli citizens don't like him. He is more brutal than some other leaders in that society.

Trump fits in to that tough world where he throws his weight around to get what he wants; another case of "might makes right" which is where violence usually leads us.

I hope that the dictatorial powers of these leaders can be broken with soft power; so to speak. Economic problems, at home, could unravel Trump's agenda. The right wing leader in Argentina is now facing economic problems. People often turn against incumbents.

I would like to see changes happen due to innovation and peaceful activism. Here in US and some other countries, the gay rights movement is an example of changes in thinking that has happened, for the most part, without violence. Innovations and new technologies can disrupt entrenched power as well.

Can a message get though the static? These days, static is information overload. In the past, it was distance and natural static.

In the old days of broadcast radio and TV, much of the audience size was determined by the power of the station's transmitter. How far could the signal reach before it was drowned out by distance and static?

On today's social media, even small signals, like my website, have a global reach. The limit is not natural distance and static, but another kind of "static" - information overload. Can a small website and Facebook presence get much audience, given all the other information sources competing for attention time?

These days, the static is information, not just the random radio hiss, or television snow of past eras. Continued below.

In the past, some TV static was said to come from the Big Bang's cosmic background radiation while most of it was from local sources, such as thermal noise, or appliances and thunderstorms. Photo I found on Wikimedia Commons.

When I was in grade school, I was impressed with the new transistor radios that people had. I remember thinking, "The more transistors radios had, the more amplification for picking up distant, faint signals. Most transistor radios had 6 transistors. I thought, "If one had 100 transistors, maybe it could pick up stations all around the world?"

Later I realized that no matter how much amplification a radio had, the faint signals would still be lost in the static. Amplification would also amplify the static so the faint distant station could still not be heard above the static.

On shortwave international band, stations could still be heard around the world, but that was different from the AM band used by those pocket transistor radios.

The power of the radio station was important back then. At night, some AM signals could travel farther due to nighttime ionospheric skip. 50,000 watt KGO, in San Francisco, was a powerhouse that could send a clear signal up and down the entire west coast. It was top rated for audience size for many years.

Then along came the internet so transmitter power became less relevant. KGO basically imploded into a low rated business, in terms of audience share. Continued below.

Above: Old nighttime coverage map from another big San Francisco station; KNBR 1970s.
Below: Part of a bicycle trip I took in 2009. Past KGO transmitter visible from bike path on Dumbarton Bridge.

Today, there is the concept of "going viral;" a term not even known during my childhood. For audience size, some information reaches huge audiences just because it went viral. An idea, meme, song, artwork or even a politician can reach an audience in the millions, or even billions. It's hard to tell why somethings go viral while others don't. This seems to follow various patterns of mass psychology. Why did Kim Kardashian get so famous, or even Donald Trump, for that matter?

The power the transmitter, itself is no longer the issue, but media power is still a factor. I recently read an article by Robert Reich warning about growing consolidation of corporate media power; especially in cable TV networks. The consolidation of ownership and control of media, by a handful of billionaires, is becoming more alarming.

Folks on the left have been talking about this for years, while I have tended to place more blame on people's attention priorities, themselves, versus control from the top. That was past decades, but control from the top seems to be getting more serious today.

It may have also been serious in the days of only 3 big TV networks and the control of big corporations, such as RCA; owner of NBC. I remember hearing, from my parents, that NBC also owned ABC. In old radio days NBC was called the Red Network while ABC was called the Blue Network until such a time that anti trust laws broke it up. I guess CBS was always, somewhat, independent.

Back in the 1990s, I thought that ease of access to the internet for artists and writers, such as myself, would bring on a golden age of diversity, global interaction and enlightenment. Today, it looks like that thought was a bit naive.

I still fault people for most of this problem. Folks are gullible and can easily be manipulated by the rich and famous. Billionaires from Taylor Swift to Donald Trump are able to manipulate us like pawns.

I still hope there will always, somehow, be conversations beyond the command and control of big money.

Deploying National Guard troops is more of an emotional response to the anti police rhetoric of 5 years ago than to the rational needs of 2025.

It seems like deploying the National Guard in cities is not based on a real need. I think much of it is an emotional response to the anti police rhetoric after George Floyd's death during a traffic stop in 2020. Pushback to the debates of past years, rather than today's needs.

I wasn't a fan of most of that anti police rhetoric back then. I often think that anger isn't a useful tool in politics. Accusing ordinary police for being racist stirred up emotion on the other side that is now being manifested in having the National Guard on some city streets.

Back in 2020, I remember seeing a good cartoon about the whole police funding versus social services issue. It depicted the social services as helping the police do their difficult jobs.

It's true that using the police to solve problems tends to be more expensive than having a just society to begin with. Things like more affordable housing can be viewed with the old phrase, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." It's like spending money on health insurance for preventative medicine versus neglecting things until having to go to the emergency room. When police are needed, that's usually like going to the emergency room.

A less accusatory way to look at the issue of police state versus fair society seems more convincing to me. Accusations bring more pushback. Now I wonder how much money is being spent on deploying the National Guard?

Admittedly, I can only speak from my personal experience of positive vibes from local police. I try not to cause trouble, such as reckless driving. Cars can be dangerous. I don't even drive a car.

Back in 2020, much of that controversy had to do with traffic stops, as I remember from the news.

The large national debt has given a boost to home and other asset values.

People worry about the national debt and it is a problem, but the Fed can do quantitative easing to print more money. More money leads to inflation, but some folks benefit from inflation. Those who own assets, such as homes, land and stocks see their asset values rise. Much of the growth of asset values, in the economy, comes from that inflation.

Republicans own the national government and eventually may have to answer to the voters.

At the national level, it looks like the Democrats have no power. Republicans run all branches of government. About the only leverage the Democrats have is to use the filibuster rules in the Senate to shut down government.

Another strategy would be to avoid shutdown and let the Republicans rule till the voters get upset with things like rising health insurance premiums. Voters might toss out Republicans and / or put pressure on the ruling party to better fund the health insurance needs. Fearing voter backlash, some Republicans might break ranks and vote with the Democrats on various issues.

Lower courts can still check the power of the president, but that is subject to the Supreme Court in the long run which is basically run by the Republicans also.

State and local government, here in Washington State, is still functioning as normal. The private sector is still functioning and can put a check on absolute presidential power, such as in the case of media. Think Jimmy Kimmel.