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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trade war recession might lower consumption and the carbon footprint.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fun time at a dance.

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

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

Dance organized by Bellingham Queer Collective.

San Francisco ferries made in Bellingham.

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

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

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

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

Artwork in the alley at the downtown Bellingham parking garage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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