Neurodivergent possibly a better term than autism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republican Party brand is losing popularity.

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

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

April 5th protest in Bellingham.

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

The volitility of one person rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some comparisons between today and the 1960s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A silver lining is the discrediting of the Republican Party.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reduce dependency on imported cars from bicycles and transit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image taken by my brother Bill in 1960s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I use my desktop computer more than my smartphone.

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

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

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

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

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

Populism is leading us to oligarchy.

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

Populism is leading us to oligarchy.

Eliminating the people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article that inspired this post.

Pondering the ultimate fate of the universe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article I found on an NPR website.

Dark Energy is weakening.

Why we can't build anything anymore.

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

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

Why we can't build anything anymore.