My bicycle tour to a gravity wave detector and more.

Pictures from my most recent 2023 bicycle tour are now in Flickr. My transit / bicycle tour to various places like Yakima Canyon, Hanford, LIGO gravity wave visitors center and even Bellevue. Lots of photos and descriptions starting at Northgate Transit Center in Seattle.

At top of this album on Flickr as of October 3 2023.

When the Pacific Northwest ran out of rivers

Image I took of Grand Coulee Dam on a bicycle tour in 2017.

During my childhood, it was said that most of Washington's electricity came from hydroelectric dams. As I got older, population and economic growth, in the Pacific Northwest, outgrew the rivers. We basically ran out of good sites to build dams; the mighty Columbia River; turned to a series of slackwater lakes.

In the 1980s, nuclear power was seen as a way to keep up with the growth, but nuclear was pretty much put out of business by less expensive natural gas. Much of the power, in the northwest, comes from natural gas fired power plants today along with the hydro power. We even have a natural gas power plant on the Bellingham waterfront.

Solar and wind are growing sources of power, but still not providing a huge share of demand.

In the 1970s, several nuclear plants were planned by an organization called "Washington Public Power Supply System." The acronym was WPPS. By coincidence WPPSS sounds like Woops.

The cost of nuclear, plus worries about it's safety after 3 Mile Island incident, in Pennsylvania, led to the mothballing of all the WPPSS projects, except for one. WPPSS went bankrupt, which became the second largest municipal bond default in US history.

I think a big part of the problem was competition with natural gas fired power plants which were easier to construct. Gas turned out to be an abundant and inexpensive source of energy.

The one nuclear plant that was finished and is producing quite a bit of the northwest's power, today, was called WPPSS #2. It's on the Hanford Reservation and has since been renamed the Columbia River Generating Station. I passed that facility on my recent bicycle trip just a few weeks ago.

I think nuclear may make a comeback as smaller, less expensive reactors become available.

Back during my grade school years, dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers were controversial. Even back then, talk of ecological problems and salmon habitat were in the news.

My dad was pretty much a New Deal liberal. He was a fan of the dams, for the most part. Many of the dams were New Deal projects.

I remember some debates, in our family, about the virtues and problems associated with dams. We would take Sunday drives down to the Snake River, near Pullman, where dad would follow the construction of two nearby dams.

One of my childhood memories, from growing up in Washington State, was the song "Roll on Columbia." "Your power is turning our darkness to dawn."

Soon to be added to my sharing. Pictures from September's bicycle tour to eastern Washington.

I recently went on a bicycle / transit bus trip to the Tri Cities area from Bellingham. My means is alternative transportation, much of it by pedal bicycle.

Above is photo I took in Zillah, WA. It's in the Yakima Valley. The famous teapot filling station now preserved by a park. Was built in the 1920s to point out an oil scandle during President Harding's administration. The so called "Teapot Dome Scandle."

Photos from this latest trip will soon be on Flickr as I organize them.

Here they are (October 2 2023).

The Republicans who wish to burn down the government. Sounds like they are for anarchy.

Oh the unnessesary budget impass again.

Interesting that Represenative McCarthy actually said, about the radical Republicans in his caucus, "they want to burn the place down."

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend when we were discussing the federal deficit. My friend said "they just want to burn down the government." Then he stood up and started shouting, "burn down the government," "burn down the government."

Social Security and Medicare would still continue, during a "shutdown," but if both those payments were on the table, maybe us senior citizens, an age group most likely to vote, would turn against the Republican Party?

Can we survive with less money? This reminds me of another friend who thinks money is an addiction. He belives that in an ideal society, money would not exist. We would all do what we need to do, for one another, out of the love and kindness in our hearts. Money addiction is evil, according to this friend. Money would not exist in an ideal world.

Speaking of love, or for that matter sex, he also believes that sexuality, for pleasure, is evil; even masturbation. He goes to various "12 step" groups; such as Alcohaulic's Annonomous. There are quite a few brands of these groops; such as Gambler's Anonomous, and Sex Addicts Anonomous.

I don't know if there is a Money or Greed Anonomous, but I do apprieciate that my friend lumps our love affair with the almighty dollar in with sex addiction.

We have our discussions as well as I don't totally go down his road. I tend to believe things like money and sex have their place in moderation.

It is true, however, that some people do have to go "cold turkey" or they fall back into an addictive pattern. This second friend seems to be in need to go cold turkey due to his own situation.

Thinking about that first conversation with that other friend who shouted that they just want to burn down the government, a point I was making in that conversation is that some Republicans think we can't get a handle on our deficit problems with business as usual. They are calling for radical steps, though I don't necessarily agree, I try and see inside their thinking.

As for radical steps, there are those who think we need to take radical steps to address the growing climate change problem. Time for another 12 step program?

I think we may be heading to higher death rates around the world. A reduction in population is possible.

In some ways, it seems like the world is getting increasingly brutal and more chaotic. Could be a symptom of over population which can be dealt with by reducing population growth or increasing death rates.

We could be returning to more brutality as growing populations, consumption and climate change continue to stress civilizations. Seems like there are some folks who are going back toward old fashioned values and solutions; like from Biblical times when empires fought wars killing willy nilly and the victor kept the spoils.

Population growth wasn't seen as much of a problem, back then, before the days of modern technology and especially today's medicine. Tribalism was more in vouge back then as well. Life expectancy was shorter from all the threats to survival from crime, war and disease. Modern societies have brought us the "global village" due to technologies; such as instant worldwide communication and jet travel. Modern times brings more talk of tolerance, cultural diversity and lifestyle diversity for survival. Birth control has been gaining ground even in some of the third world, but especially in what's called the first world.

Much of society does seem to be moving forward to a kinder and more tolerant society, but I fear that there are many who are wishing to turn back the clock. This could be due to the increasing stress of our times.

Large parts of the world are in turmoil. Even in the west and here in USA, many folks want to turn back to old solutions.

Instead of stable population and sustainable living we may be reverting to increasing death rates around the world and even here in USA; a less desirable way to keep population at more sustainable levels.

Above is something I was thinking, but then wrote down after listening this program on NPR's The 1a. It's about donor fatigue. More money for war, such as between Russia and Ukraine, plus increasing things like the flood in Libya are draining aid money around the world.

My speculations about bankruptcy for WSU football.

Walkway along fancy new center for Cougar Football near the stadium in Pullman.

I wonder who WSU athletics debt is owed too? Banks or internal university, state of Washington funds?

If to an outside bank, that could bring up the topic of potential bankruptcy. I wonder if bankruptcy could protect the rest of the university from having to fully pay off that debt?

Most officials would probably think these questions are premature. They are now focusing on the unknown future which involves probably moving to another conference now that the Pac 12 has broken apart. Also potential new sources of revenue from the constantly changing media landscape; internet media and so forth beyond ticket sales.

They are also focusing on this season with the Pac 12 still functioning. The changes in the conference start next year. I've never been a sports fan, myself and it does seem like an unnecessary burden to me.

Western Washington University, here in Bellingham, did away with it's football program during a round of state mandated cuts. Unlike at WSU, football at Western was never that large and I don't think it was ever seen as a net revenue generator. I don't think it ever payed it's own way like a business.

At WSU, I think football payed its own way till recent times when the stakes got higher and it became more expensive to to keep up with the Jones.

A few months ago, I got to thinking WSU should have gone to a less costly, "high stakes" conference before incurring that debt, but hindsight is better than foresight.

Now that situation has come to pass as it looks like WSU will find itself in a different football conference now that the big schools that are closer to big cities, like Seattle and Los Angeles, are planning to leave the Pac 12.

Most people worry about whether our southern border is too secure, or not secure enough. The bigger issue is that an overwhelming number of folks dream of living in USA.

Many folks dreaming of living in USA, Canada, Australia or Europe never even make it to the border.

I keep thinking of different angles on similar themes, like world population.

Conservatives make it sound like our southern border is totally out of control and being flooded with immigrants. I doubt that's the case, though I haven't seen it with my own eyes.

The media tells that story, but it also tells the story that liberals will say; it's really hard to cross the border. Enforcement is harsh. The truth is usually in the middle.

I would guess that it's hard to cross the border; even under Biden, there is plenty of enforcement. The factor that both sides overlook is not an issue of enforcement. It's just the overwhelming number of people wishing to come to USA. There are so many people wishing to be in USA that even with a fairly tight border, it's kind of an overwhelming situation.

I worry that much of the world is becoming unlivable. Ruled by authoritarian dictators that hate LGBTQ people; for instance. Wars, famine and climate change. Much of the land area of earth is under the iron fist of dictators.

Lots of people are dying just trying to live their lives, or get to places where they and their families are safer. Some parts of the world are getting more open minded, while other parts are under authoritarian regimes. Many parts of the world seem to be getting worse.

Here in USA, we have some folks who would like to push us back to a more authoritarian culture, but we still have a good degree of freedom and many parts of USA have been making good progress over recent years. Things seem to be pretty good here in Washington State.

In many ways, the world around me has seen lots of improvement. Some problems as well, but all in all there is progress, at least in some areas, but it would be better if there was progress, or at least basic livability, in most areas of the world.

Photo: World map on first floor of Webster Hall, WSU, Pullman.

Government isn't the cause of the regulation gridlock. Today's world is just more crowded with more powerful technology and the environment is more vulnerable to harm.

Conservatives tend to blame government for the vast maze of environmental regulations that make doing things next to impossible. There is a deeper problem than government.

The modern world is different than the world of a century ago. The world has more people so it's more crowded. It's harder to do anything without someone complaining that it's too close to their backyard.

The technology we have, today, is a lot more powerful than in the past. Business can potentially do a lot more harm. A third factor is that safety and environmental expectations are higher today. In the past people lived with smog, unsafe working conditions and so forth with less complaint. Today's expectations are higher; except for maybe a glaring loophole caused by the automobile. People still take for granted the traffic death toll while other safety rules are more stringent. The automobile is grandfathered in.

Another thing that is different, today, than in centuries past, is how much awareness we have of things that could be harmful in our environments. Contaminants in the air and water can be measured in the "1 part per millions" range. Even trace amounts of things make modern people nervous.

These big changes, between modern society and the past, are the main factor. The government is mostly just a scapegoat; like folks barking up the wrong tree.

Yes, private enterprise can be more innovative than government, in some cases; for instance Space X (a private firm) has done some things in space that NASA hasn't been able to accomplish. Still, NASA has done some innovative stuff as well.

The way an organization is set up, whether private or government, is a factor, but the big factor is the fact that we live in a more modern and crowded world than we did in past centuries. Population, technologies, awareness and expectations are different these days.

Why there are a lot of jobs in spite of rising interest rates

Some people are scratching their heads wondering why there are still so many jobs in spite of high interest rates. I just thought of a reason. Lowering interest rates is a bad way to increase the number of jobs.

Up until the pandemic, low interest has basically gone into inflating home values and other assets; not as much into creating jobs. Now that interest rates are higher, asset values are starting to calm down, but job creation remains strong; so far at least.

Conservatives tend to think private enterprise is better at creating jobs than government. That philosophy has been a big factor behind trying to create jobs via low interest rates. It hasn't worked that well. To a large extent, private entrepreneurs have held onto their money and acted to protect their asset values. This doesn't lead to that much job creation. More recently, there has been a surge in government spending, covid relief, infrastructure and stimulus spending. I think that might be a better way to create jobs; even in the private sector as private companies are often mostly just vendors supplying government contracts.

The true private market has been more sluggish in past years due to many factors; including caution about risking capital on new ventures. There's been some new ventures and innovation in private enterprise, but also a lot of aversion to risk. Conservatives would say that aversion to risk is mostly caused by layers and layers of government regulation. Yes, that's a big factor, but not everyone wants what private enterprise brings to their neighborhood. One example of a restrictive regulation, of course, is single family zoning.

Now that there's more talk about the housing shortage, I am noticing more multi family construction going on in the past 3, or so, years. This, being a factor leading to the boom in construction jobs and a shortage of skilled labor in the carpentry field.

Job creation has been pretty strong during the Biden Presidency. Conservatives are wondering "how can that be?" Some folks are predicting a crash to come soon due, in part, to the rising interest rates. They also don't trust "Bidenomics."

Who knows, but so far, the job picture still looks pretty rosy and I think rising interest rates hasn't detracted much from job creation. Rising interest rates may mean less people making a living by flipping real estate.

Are there too many people on Earth?

Dam removal on Elwha River to improve salmon habitat.

Are there too many people on Earth? It depends on how people wish to live. If everyone were as consumptive as most Americans, there are too many, but we could reduce consumption and still have good lives depending on how we use technology. Micro electronics can go a long ways.

On the other hand, there are too many people for us to totally go back to our old ways. We need lots of natural space to survive if our survival is based on old style hunting, gathering and fishing.

I am glad they removed the two dams on the Elwha River, in Washington State, to bring back salmon habitat even though hydroelectic power is low carbon footprint. Thoes dams didn't generate that much power anyway.

Now there is a bigger dam removal project on the Klamath River in California. Might still be a good idea, I know less about it. Both dam removal projects have been promoted by Native American interests.

There is talk of removing dams on the Snake River in Washington for salmon recovery as well. Thoes are larger dams.

We can't have it all, I guess. Increasing prosperity, world population that is still growing, lowering carbon footprint and maintianing old ways. There are many tradeoffs and life can never be totally ideal for everyone.

Paying to reduce climate change. Cap and trade in Washington State.

Here in Washington, people are learning that taxing corporations does have consequences for ordinary consumers. Our new cap and trade rules are contributing to Washington's relatively high gas prices. oil companies pass the costs on to consumers.

Still, Washington gas prices are a bargain compared to Canada where taxes raise the price. Here in Whatcom County, we still see many Canadians come south of the border to fill up.

I still follow the news even though I don't drive.

Yes energy taxes, whether hidden by cap and trade or seen at the pump, are regressive, but most energy consumption is done by the millions and millions of rank and file consumers. The super wealthy and corporations are like the maestros leading the orchestra.

Yahoo News; possibly a good model to pay for journalism without a paywall. Possible lessons for Facebook.

There is an attempt by the Canadian government to make Facebook pay more for news media content that appears on Facebook. This is seen as a way to help pay for newspapers and organizations that support professional journalism; a field who's revenue sources have been drying up.

Facebook is fighting back by removing some of the news content in Canada. I got to thinking that, somehow, Yahoo News works. Yahoo must pay for the rights to reprint certain stories from many sources; such as the New York Times. That's how I get around paywalls. Otherwise, who wants to subscribe to hundreds of publications, just to get past the paywalls? I don't have the time, or the money, to subscribe to hundreds of publications.

Somehow, Yahoo News seems to work. Maybe something like that could work with Facebook as well. Some sort of compromise. Much of the news I post on Facebook comes from Yahoo News. I try and share links that don't throw up paywalls. NPR Radio is another good source of journalism. KGMI Radio, in Bellingham, doesn't put up a paywall on their website. It seems like broadcast media works better, in the internet age, than newspapers even though newspapers have some of the best content. I've heard it said that "the truth goes behind paywalls while conspiracy theories, promotions and propaganda are free on the net."

Yahoo News does work pretty well and I think they pay for what they repost from publications with paywalls. Many of my Facebook posts come from links to Yahoo.

I also notice that posts with a link to news get less response. Facebook probably gives those posts less push in it's algorithms. Also news and politics may not be that popular compared to personal posts and photographs. The number of clicks and likes effects algorithms. People may be sick of politics, but, as the old saying goes, "a photo as worth a thousand words."

Washington State tops the list for highest gas prices. Cap and trade a hidden tax? Way to go Washington on the road to lower carbon emissions, but I still think a carbon tax is more honest.

I hear that Washington State has the highest gas prices in USA. Since I ride a bicycle, I wouldn't notice except for the news media coverage.

Conservatives tend to blame our new cap and trade system for reducing carbon emissions. They do have a point. I don't think you can just tax corporations without them passing the cost on to consumers. Cap and trade is kind of complex. I'd prefer a straight forward carbon tax. Cap and trade is more like a hidden tax.

Even with a carbon tax, the government can still provide help to folks that are lower income and harder hit; like farm workers or folks who have to commute a long ways since they can't afford housing that's closer to jobs.

Still, if we really want to reduce our carbon footprint, the cost of fossil fuels needs to go up.

At least it was probably a quick death. I still feel sorry for those who died on the Titan. Why so much news coverage?

There has been lots of news coverage about the attempts to rescue those wealthy adventurers who went down to look at the Titanic.

It does seem like they might have died quickly from the submersible imploding. It may have been a quick end.

While everyone surviving would be the best news, I would guess a quick death is better than suffering, while trapped in the sub running out of oxygen over several days.

On BBC Radio, there was a segment questioning why this rescue effort got so much media attention compared to the hundreds of refugees that recently drowned in the Mediterranean Sea as they were trying to reach Europe from deadly circumstances in places like Syria.

Wealth and class of the sub's occupants was mentioned as a factor, but also the uniqueness of the situation. Thousands, or even millions of refugees are dying so; what else is new?

Adventurers in the sub brought a new twist to the story and the media tends to only highlight certain things.

This brings back memories of 1988 when the media was full of news about 3 whales that were trapped under ice that was quickly forming, in the Arctic Ocean, at the start of that winter.

Would the confused whales suffocate under the ice, or could they find their way back out to open ocean?

An international effort of amateurs and eventually international militaries joined in an effort to save the whales. News about those 3 whales was riveting for several days, even though, I think, whales getting trapped under ice has happened many times at the start of winter as ice reforms in the Arctic.

Why was 1988 so special? Who knows. Maybe it's just randomness that certain stories take off while others don't. Once something gets started, we join in till the next thing captures the news cycle.

I remember that I was following that rescue effort with interest so I decided to look it up in Google and "sure enough," here's the first link that came up.

As for the class issue, I still prefer news of survival to death, but at least a quick death seems better than desperate suffering. We all will leave this planet at some point.

There is a lot of bitterness and hatred in this world, as well, so I am reminded of a joke that may be in bad taste.

“What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?”
“A good start.”

In spite of that joke, I still prefer survival and a world where there is less hostility.

Planned Parenthood protecting the right to life by providing healthcare

When I think of Planned Parenthood, I think of contraception. We still need to reduce population growth even though the growth rate of world population is slowing. With over 8 billion people on this planet, we really don't do well at protecting right to life. Folks die to to lack of access to healthcare, especially in states like Texas that still refuses Medicaid expansion. People die when they can't immigrate to countries that are safer than where they are from; for instance folks killed by the gangs in central America. Climate change is adding more refugees to world population. War and gun violence are killers, even unsafe highways are killers.

I think of contraception, but I hear ads, from Planned Parenthood, saying they provide healthcare. Yes, good point. Access to healthcare which can be difficult to find.

Back to my point about the difficulties in protecting right to life for all 8 billion on this limited planet. My mind first thinks of contraception when I think of Planned Parenthood, but also realizing their role in taking care of people who's life saving needs are often not provided for due to economics, or many other reasons.

Now we have a situation where even laws against abortion may be deadly. I hear that doctors are fleeing some states fearing that certain interpretations of anti abortion laws will prosecute them for practicing medicine in the gray area of difficult pregnancies. There are difficult situations dealing with miscarriages, possible threats to life of the mother and so forth. I read that hospitals, in some towns, can't deliver babies anymore as the doctors, who do this, have fled to other areas of this country where laws are less intrusive. Some people, having children, are having to travel farther to find a hospital with sufficient staff for delivery.

Trying to reduce the debt may next have to go after things like Medicare, the military and Social Security.

The biggest costs of government are things like Medicare and Social Security. To reduce the debt, it's hard to avoid touching these large expenses.

It's odd that I find myself agreeing with McCarthy who points out that only 11% of the budget was on the table for cuts. What I disagree with, in McCarthy's take, is that Biden walled off the rest of the budget. This article makes no mention of the option to increase taxes. Higher taxes could go a long ways toward shoring up Medicare and Social Security; for instance raising the income cap subject to Social Security taxes.

Article made no mention of how much is spent on the military as well.

Like gay people being in the closet. Most politicians, including Democrats, are closeted about raising taxes. It's dangerous talk on the campaign trail. Republicans pretty much refuse to even consider taxes. Democrats tremble at the thought as well, but democrats usually realize that taxes are needed to pay for what people want from government.

There are limits to what we can get, versus what people are willing to pay. There are limits imposed by pure mathematics and I'd add limits to what the natural environment will sustain in terms of human consumption.

Yes, we can have a good life and even better lives than in the past; counting all things beyond just money and materialism.

I think wealthy people should pay more taxes, including upper middle class. Maybe even everyone pay more, including even myself. Yes we can't have it all. Some things people demand can't always be met. Budgets can be tightened, to some extent.

What's most important, to me, is the quality of our lives and our communities. Trying to be fair and reasonable, but realizing that perfection is never attained.

Dilemma that Republicans face. Hard to significantly cut the budget when Medicare, military and veterans benefits are taken off the table.

Looks like they may have worked out a budget deal that avoids default. We'll see if it passes. I think the spending cutbacks in the deal are more mild than Republicans had originally pushed for.

One big problem, with budget cutting, is that government does a lot of important things besides just taking care of the military, the veterans and Medicare. If those large budget items are exempt from cutting, most of the money is still being spent. The cuts, in other areas, would have to be draconian to accomplish large cuts in the total.

There is a need for the border patrol, for instance.

My May 2023 trip, mostly by bicycle, to Vancouver, BC. from Bellingham, WA.

Cambie St. Bridge at sunset.

See photos on my Flickr space. No paywall. Click Here to the following 78 photos with captions about this trip.

Compared to housing and healthcare, most of the rest of inflation seems like just pocket change.

Republicans are stirring up anxiety over the national debt. A consequence of the debt is inflation, but I haven't really noticed inflation that much.

Yes, home values and rents have skyrocketed over the past few decades.

Inflation of other prices has been more modest until after the pandemic when it did tick up some. Wages have gone up also. I've noticed somewhat higher prices for restaurant meals, food and consumer goods, but seems like these things are mere pocket change compared to rent or healthcare costs.

My rent is held at a bit below 40% of my income as I am in subsidized housing. Medicare covers most of the cost of my health insurance premiums. The Medicare premium is much lower than it would be if Medicare wasn't subsidized by government.

I have no car.

Other expenses do seem like mere pocket change to me. Everything else is around half my income, but I haven't noticed inflation that much. My Social Security has had a generous cost of living increase due the inflation. If the economy crashes, everyone could be a lot worse off.

Homonormativity questioned.

Saw stuff about this on Facebook.

Apparently, during the campaign of 2020, a group of activists calling themselves “Queers Against Pete” attempted to disrupt his events. They were folks who saw in the former mayor of South Bend a paragon of “homonormativity.” I read, in the post, about an article written for The New Republic that the magazine later retracted, the writer Dale Peck derided Pete Buttigieg as “Mary Pete,” the gay version of an Uncle Tom.

I can understand being a critic of homonormativity, but I certainly wouldn't be part of a circular firing squad attacking other gay people and allies who have made it to influential positions. Pete has done good in my opinion.

I am definitely not part of a "normal" middle class couple, myself. My own sexuality and lifestyle is very low on the romantic scale and higher on the unusual scale.

Interesting that, until that recent Facebook post, I have never heard of that group of activists, but around two months ago, I wrote this somewhat toung in cheek blog post about right wing, rather than left wing, criticism of Pete Buttigieg.

Did "family values" cause the air travel chaos of Christmas 2022?

In many cases gender and gender pronouns don't really matter

Talking to some young people about the gender pronoun issue, I shared memories from my college past of almost 40 years ago. Back then, the gay issue was coming out on campus. I also knew quite a few transgender people, but pronouns wasn't a topic that people were discussing. As I remember, there was less anxiety about proper pronouns.

The folks, I was discussing this with, understood and seemed accepting of my perspective.

Back in my college days, I think expectations were lower, but I would like to think that society keeps progressing forward. On the other hand, people may have been just as happy, back then, or maybe even happier back then. Expectations were less demanding.

It's kind of like before electric lightbulbs were invented, folks didn't fret about the inconvenience of not having electric lights. They didn't know what they were missing.

These days, I think the science about gender has progressed, so it's seen as less binary. One now hears about folks who want to be called "they" instead of he or she. The term "gender fluid" was less in the lexicon, back then.

Science has progressed to where gender fluid is more recognized, though most people still identify as either male or female. There are shades of grey that are more recognized today.

The term "they" is kind of awkward. Maybe a new term can be found? They is usually thought of as non singular.

At the same time, I have used the term they to describe one person before. For instance, "I wondered how to get to a certain road so I ask someone how to get there and THEY pointed me in the right direction."

In many cases, gender doesn't matter.

Back in my college days, the big issue was that women didn't want to be called "girls." Often people were corrected when they said "college girls." It's "college women." The term "chick" for woman was totally incorrect.

As I remember, I always did say women and my mom once said, "in this case it's" when I was talking about my nieces that were, then in grade school.

I also remember the attempts to put the word womyn. in the language. It's womyn instead of women. That term less subservient without the "men" in it.

Science doesn't necessarily indicate that there is no god, but squabbles between religious factions seems to indicate that religious truths might be BS.

I still believe that there could be something like what we call a god.

At the same time, I think the best evidence that there is no such thing as a god or spiritual reality is the behavior of so many religious people. All the squabbling over interpretations and the fighting over what people claim is the truth.

This behavior is stronger evidence that it's all BS than what we are learning from science. On big questions about the meaning of life, scientific evidence seems inconclusive. It doesn't rule out spirituality, in my opinion.

Science, itself, seems inconclusive on many big questions, so far, but the behavior of some religious people; especially the folks who claim to be certain about what the truth is, does indicate that many religious claims are BS.

Living without a car has worked for me

Lots of people think it's almost impossible to live without a car in USA. I have been able to do it all my life and it doesn't seem that hard for me. Admittedly, I live in town in a city that is fairly bicycle friendly. Bellingham, WA.

Seems like making our energy sources totally green and building passenger rail systems, like they have in Europe, would take nearly a century to accomplish. Waiting for society to change from the top down is a long wait. Meanwhile climate change scientists keep saying that time is running out.

I think my own lifestyle has a fairly low carbon footprint already, though I may be missing something in the calculations. I might be drinking enough milk to counteract everything else I do, or don't do.

If we spend 50 trillion to decarbonize, how much lower will global temperatures be?

Sen. John Kennedy, (R-La) grilled a Biden Administration official about climate change. The senator ask, "how much would spending $50 trillion in American taxpayer money to become carbon-neutral lower global temperatures?"

The official was at a loss for words, but I'd say, "There are too many other variables in that equation. What will other countries do, for instance." "It's not a question that can be answered that simplistically." I don't know, for sure, what I'd say if I was sitting at that microphone being grilled, however.

Here is my take.

Climate change is a global problem related to population growth and increasing consumption around the world. Apparently, the US now accounts for only 13% of global carbon emissions; according to that Biden official's testimony.

Republicans use that figure to imply that our efforts to reduce our own carbon emissions may not make that much difference in the bigger picture. We are just one of many drops in the bucket.

One must also, of course, figure in the things we consume in the US that are manufactured overseas. Our consumption likely accounts for more than 13% of global carbon emissions, but it likely would still be much less than half.

Other countries are making strides to reduce emissions so they aren't just twiddling their thumbs, as many Republicans would say. This is a global problem that goes beyond an "us versus them" mindset.

Historically, the US and other first world countries of the past, have created most of the emissions over the past century, but going forward, it's a different story. Our emissions are now a smaller part of the overall picture.

I highly doubt that we (first world) can amend or compensate for the past. Aside from the logistics, the political will does not exist.

Forgetting the past, going forward is the issue we are dealing with now.

Over the next 10 years, I doubt we will be able to meet our goals to reduce carbon emissions. Green technology is still slow in coming, though it is coming faster than before. Our society's dependency on wealth and convenience is so strong that we can't likely meet the goals environmentalists set, let alone think about the past.

As for the rest of the world, the problem is global. The US does need to strive harder to reduce carbon emissions along with the rest of the world. The technology and lifestyles to accomplish this should be shared around the world.

Solutions to the problem include, of course, technology, but also changes in the way we plan our living habitats. We should learn how to build with less sprawl. The whole world needs reductions in population growth worldwide (which is starting to happen). We need less dependency on automobiles, large homes and personal wealth. New paradigms for the entire world including USA.

We could continue kicking the can down the road on the federal deficit, or cut spending and go into a recession.

About the debt ceiling, it seems like the choices are to raise it, as the Democrats want to do and continue the spending we have now. This contributes to the inflation we have now which doesn't seem like that big a problem, or at least it's just like a slow boil.

Another alternative is to significantly cut spending, as Republicans would like to do. This would likely put us into a recession.

Falling off the fiscal cliff (artificial debt ceiling default of the government) could roil markets, confidence and bring a recession as well.

We may by cycling toward recession anyway, regardless of what the politicians do, as we've been in a period of relative prosperity, coming out of the pandemic slowdown. We have been in a recent period of a booming economy with low unemployment. We've returned to high consumption and dealt with supply chain bottlenecks.

Carbon footprint and energy consumption is now up again, after falling during the pandemic.

Of course, in spite of the prosperity of these times, there are always lots of people left behind. The prosperity is never enough.

The stock market and asset values does motivate people in office; especially Republicans.

The market crash of 2007 lead to Tarp bailouts. Market loss in 2020, due to the pandemic, led to debt worry set aside and 3 Trillion appeared even under a Republican president and majority in the Senate. On the debt, we can likely just keep kicking the can down the road, versus crashing the economy.

Another possibility. Maybe Biden looses most of the newly past infrastructure bill. We kick the climate change can farther down the road. Biden looses most of his plan to forgive student loans, which the Supreme Court may take away anyway. A compromise like that goes through. The economy could go into a downtourn while more people complain about loosing funding for addressing climate change and continuing to be burdened by student debt.

More and more young people may start voting.