About free college and other idealistic things

Some reservations I would have about Bernie Sanders tho I would vote for him, or any of the Democratic candidates who get the nomination.

Ideas, like free college seem far fetched unless the bulk of grass roots people get behind it. Back in my college days, college was, at least more affordable. Most of the cost of college was paid for by state taxpayers. At least at state run colleges where (I think) most students go. Around 70% of the cost was covered by the state. Today, the taxpayers pay only around 40% of the cost (here in Washington State at least) so tuition is much higher.

Washington is a "blue state," but we still have trouble raising taxes. Washington voters have turned down several initiatives to have a progressive income tax in this state.

Another problem is that the cost of college has gone way up since my college years. Much of that has to due with a growing gap of incomes between upper middle class "professionals" and average working people.

As for the salaries of upper income professionals, various institutions, including colleges, government agencies, private businesses and non profits have been in a bidding war to raise top level salaries as they strive to attract and retain what they consider to be their most talented staff. This bidding war drives up costs.

Spiraling property values for residential property has also driven up the need for the higher salaries due to rising costs of living.

We may be able to make college more affordable, but free college is a bit of a stretch.

Part of the problem is that people, like Bernie Sanders, try and blame everything on the 1%. The 1% may be the most to blame, but part of that money is tied up in the capital that runs business. A much bigger group of people is the top 20%, or so. Upper middle class. The gap between upper middle class and average workers has grown higher as well.

Upper middle class can be blamed for a lot of things like the NIMByism that makes it harder to build affordable housing.

It's true that the 1% is especially culpable in basically buying Congress. This has been made worse after the Citizen's United ruling.

Politicians don't like to blame upper middle class since that group has a lot of voters. In some ways, it seems more politically smart to blame the 1% because 99% can logically out vote 1%. The problem is, that logic has not worked. Much of the 99% still supports Donald Trump and other Republicans.

Not only is there big income gaps in our society, but there is also a cultural divide. Some of the 1% is liberal, culturally, while quite a lot of the 99% remain conservative.

Think of the liberal billionaires such as George Soros who support environmental causes. Think of what people often refer to as the "Hollywood elite." The cultural divide cuts differently than the income divide. We are dealing with both a cultural divide as well as the income divide, but they are somewhat different phenomenon.

Changes need to happen at the grassroots level. For things like free, or even just affordable college to work, the people have to be willing to pay for this.

Some say, just cut the military and pay for it via federal, rather than state government.

I am for cutting the military, but that is difficult to do also. It only takes a band of well organized criminals to create something like a 911. If that were to happen, fear would drive politics toward the military again. Even if a big military is not the best solution to the 911 problem (such as sending hundreds of tanks into Baghdad), people vote with their emotions all too often.

I hate to say it, but I think fear is a more powerful emotion than love. When it comes to emotions, fear trumps love. That could be a pun also.

I would say more head and probably less heart is needed in human culture. That may sound counter intuitive. We all have emotions (heart), but they don't often go in good directions. Greed, fear and so forth often prevail. Logic may not be perfect, but I think it is too often underrated.

More idealistic thinking is definitely possible, but it has to come from big cultural changes at the grassroots level.

Republicans aren't likely to pass taxes for infrastructure anyway

Trump walks out of meeting with congressional Democrats that was to be about infrastructure spending. Oh well, we can't increase infrastructure spending without raising taxes anyway; or maybe taking money from the military or adding to the debt. We can't do federal public infrastructure, that is. Private infrastructure; like toll roads can still be done and states can move forward also.

The fight wasn't about infrastructure, but it is the battle between Trump and the new Democratically elected House over investigations of the president. Investigations; even impeachment can take place in the House, but Trump is still highly protected by most of the Republicans in the Senate.

Beyond just the politics of Trump and Congress, the American people are divided. A good way toward better infrastructure is to raise the gas tax. A hard sell especially to Republicans, but to Democrats also. Democrats don't like regressive taxes, which a gas tax would be. They are reluctant to do this without raising taxes on the wealthy. Republicans are pretty set against the latter.

Trump might say, oh, hell, we've got almost full employment anyway without the damn infrastructure.

Yes, Americans are employed, but many are stuck in traffic, or unable to afford convenient housing.

Speaking of traffic, another question is, where are we going to put the infrastructure? In most cities, there is no room to add lanes to the freeway.

The old American way is no longer working. We need greener infrastructure, greener lifestyles and greener politics. Investigations or not, 2020 election is on its way. Are you going to vote?

Stripping Down the carbon footprint. My article related to June 7 naked bike ride in Bellingham 2019

Someone's chalk Art I found on sidewalk a week, or two, ago.

Painting party before and block party after ride. Events in front of Make.shift Art Gallery 306 Flora in downtown Bellingham. Friday June 7 2019.

Article I wrote for Betty Pages about:

Stripping down the carbon footprint

We need to find ways to make reducing the carbon footprint more fun. Just asking people to make sacrifices doesn't usually go over well.

Improving technology can help us reduce fossil fuel consumption. Things like LED lights can help as they use a lot less energy than old fashioned incandescent lighting. Generating more of our energy from solar power is needed also. Problem is, it takes a lot of time for the use of these new technologies to become widespread.

In the meantime, population keeps growing and more of the world's people rise out of poverty. Consumption of fossil fuels continues to increase. Few folks want to go back to the Dark Ages and sacrifice the pleasures of modern life.

How can we make conservation more enjoyable so the idea becomes popular?

One way is to think of other benefits besides just the value of having money and material wealth. How about the benefit of good health?

Bicycling may not be as fast as driving, but it's a good way to integrate exercise into one's means of transportation. Depending on the circumstances, it can be a lot of fun.

One really fun ride is the World Naked Bike Ride. This happens in many cities around the world; including here in Bellingham. Our local version of this ride is planned for Friday, June 7th. Starts by the Makeshift Gallery, 306 Flora around 6 pm.

The ride is non competitive. It can be enjoyed by folks from a wide range of ages and body types. One need not even be naked to participate. There are many versions of dress, or undress, depending on one's level of comfort. Volunteers are needed and quite a few folks just come downtown to cheer on the riders.

More information is available on their website.

There is usually a fun dance after the ride. I got to thinking that dancing is a form of exercise that a lot of people enjoy. They usually don't think of it as a chore; like maybe going to the gym. This is how we ought to view things like bicycling. We can also view other forms of reducing the carbon footprint in this way as well.

Folks are often striving to increase the GDP of our economy. This can be hard work and a burden for both the individual and the planet. How about spending more time away from the job? More time for friends and family, or even just time to get an adequate amount of sleep.

If we could measure the success of our economy in terms of our health, or the amount of connection we have with community, our task of reducing the carbon footprint would be a lot easier.

By Robert Ashworth

Pete Buttigieg's liberal approach to Christianity is much needed

Liberal and accepting Christianity has been around for years, but it tends to not get a lot of attention. The candidacy of Pete Buttigieg for US president is bringing more media focus to the side of Christianity that is more open to diverse peoples. Also the recent coming out of a student at BYU, a Morman university, is in the news. Among the many podcasts I listen to as I do my custodial job.

One main point that is made by Buttigieg is that being gay is his natural state. What he was, basically born as. God made him that way. Not a choice. One conservative caller pointed out that there are a lot of traits in various human natures that are not necessarily good to express. Like the urge to murder, that some people face.

I got to thinking that there is also another way to justify the diversity that we call homosexuality. One can ask, what is the harm? Most people know there is harm from a lot of our human emotions such as the urge toward murder. There is good reason to suppress many of our less socially comparable desires. As for love or sexual feelings between two consenting adults, what's the harm? I almost like that argument better than the more common "we can't help it, this is our natural state" argument.

In my thinking, asking what the harm is can lead to one of my favorite points about alternative lifestyles that seldom gets discussed. The problem of population growth. If more people were gay, or at least not as into procreation, the environment would be less endangered. The world is still facing the challenge of dealing with global warming while a projected 3 billion more people will be living on the planet in the next few decades. Even with birthrates dropping, there is still enough growth in the pipeline to bring us from 7 billion to 10 billion in the next few decades. We are having trouble accommodating 7 billion. Think of all the refugees. Conservatives talk about the "flood" of immigrants. Seems like we are headed toward a world of hate unless we become more accepting to folks who aren't necessarily in the mainstream of procreation.

Wealth isn't all bad; especially now that Bernie Sanders is part of the 1%

Reminded by the Times reporter that he is now someone of considerable means, Sanders retorted: "I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too." Apparently, Hillary Clinton made a similar comment and got flack for it.

I remember when being a millionaire was a big deal. These days, you pretty much have to be a millionaire to be middle class if you live in a place like Seattle or the San Francisco Bay Area. At least you are a millionaire if you own a home and your mortgage is paid off.

This reminds me of the controversy over Al Gore's big house from a few years back. An environmentalist living in a big house? Well, maybe a former vice president still needs space to house the Secret Service.

Big time celebrities and politicians are the ones with name recognition that people flock to. Seems like that's all but inevitable in a big country such as ours. I think if I ran for president, it wouldn't get much farther than my Facebook friends.

Getting electioned takes name recognition. I've often thought that one house of Congress ought to be selected by random lottery, rather than popularity contest. By random lot, maybe some obscure janitor would be represented. There would be representation from pretty much all walks of life. Experts as well as nitwits in many fields.

Lots of very wealthy people are on our side culturally. Many support higher taxes on their own wealth. The left does need it's powerful and influential people as well. Much of it depends on how the money is used and what policies are being promoted.

At the same time it can often be said that we have met the enemy and he is us. Our society tends to create and then follow the people of wealth. Hollywood celebrities are often listened to more than scientists, for instance. Whether we like it or not, we tend to uphold fame and fortune.

I constantly like to remind people, "we have met the enemy and he is us." I saw that phrase on a banner in the hallway of my high school many years ago. It's been with me most of my life.

I think it's useful to try not to think in terms of who's the enemy. Another quote I like is from Mahatma Gandhi. "Be the change you want to see in this world."

Dating; a more fertile field for bots than deep conversation

I may have been chatting with a rather crude version of artificial intelligence a few days ago. I accept just about all friend requests as who knows, they may be followers of my website that I haven't met yet.

Some of these "new friends" will immediately go into chat and ask questions such as "are you married?"

When I say things like I like being single and I am gay, they often respond like a real person basically saying no problem, but sometimes they still like to chat; like maybe practicing English as they live in India, or someplace.

A few days ago, the "person" was supposedly a young woman. Answers to my responses came quickly as if not typed, but canned pre scripted paragraphs. Even when I say I am gay, it keeps asking if I want to see nude pictures. Also another one of my friends ask if I knew the "person." It was sending more friend requests to my list of friends. Eventually, I unfriended what I think was the bot.

I've seen nude pictures of a computer before.😆

Even real people can seem like robots when they are looking for romance, or doing some kind of business promotion. They reach out to large numbers of people with pretty standardized responses. Kind of ironic if it's romance as they don't know anything about me. It's supposedly an intimate interest, but they are just going down the list; playing the field.

This is what much of the dating world is like even off line, I guess. When I was younger, I was often passed over by the dating scene as I was kind of odd in a lot of ways. Now I'm probably too old for most of the algorithms that run, both on the internet and in people's heads. I was never really into dating.

New contacts are most interesting if they have seen something I have posted and are responding to that. If someone is responding to something that's unique from me, that seems like truer intimacy to me.

When a regular MD says, "an apple a day keeps the doctor away," that's pretty good.

One of the favorite quotes of my MD is this, "an apple a day keeps the doctor away." There's a little more to it than just that, but that makes a nice sound byte. He's a regular MD, but in many cases this is still the best strategy. Avoid having to go to the doctor. My MD is ready with evidence based scientific treatments if need be, but lifestyle is usually the first choice. Then there's then whole question of the cost of medicine. Another incentive to err on the side of less medially intense solutions. Not everyone is so fortunate as some do need more intense medicine, but ideally it's a good thing to try and avoid.

I tend to avoid non scientific alternative medicine. It still has the downside of cost.

For tenure to work best, the institution needs to be growing and hiring

Tenure was sometimes complained about, even back in the 1970s, as tenure could make it hard for new talent to get into the school's teaching positions. Not enough tenure track positions available and, at the same time, folks would say it's because they have to keep the dead wood; or at least what's perceived as the dead wood. When the institutions aren't growing and hiring, there isn't enough abundance to protect tenure AND provide a place for the new talent.

Tenure was good at protecting professors from the political whims of legislators who could turn off the spigot of salary if tenure didn't exist. At the same time, I think it was designed in a time when schools were growing and hiring. When growth slowed down, it became a choice between preserving tenured staff versus having room for new people in the system. Unfortunately turning into kind of a zero sum situation.

My thought about the term deadwood is related to the concept of ineffective rather than age, but I can see how it can be interpreted as age.

Effective and ineffective are somewhat in the eye of the beholder which is one of the reasons for tenure. Politics that's different than some legislator sitting on a funding committee could be defined as ineffective. Another term related to deadwood is boring. A professor who is not entertaining. To teach, I think it's important to hold the attention of students, but even that can be a matter of opinion. I've never been a teacher, but I have been a student; years ago.

As for the term "deadwood," I can't help but think of a joke that was popular during my college days. It may not be politically correct, but if someone thought a class was boring, they would often say, "the professor has already died, but they forgot to bury that professor."

It would be nice if there was enough jobs for both the aspiring new and already existing members of the faculty.

Were they worried about an ice age in the 1970s? Was the energy crisis a hoax?

Videos, like "In Search Of The Coming Ice Age" from 1977 are being passed around among global warming deniers. This video is from 1978 what could happen if we entered another ice age. A memory from 40 years ago.

I watched it and got a different take. I don't see it as discrediting today's worry about global warming. It was an interesting documentary; pretty sensationalized tho. Typical of television. the main point I got from watching it is how we take our fairly stable climate for granted. Things could change. For instance some forms of volcanism could put so much dust in the atmosphere that it would reflect out enough sunlight to cause severe cooling.

Even in this documentary, the prospect was not seen as imminent in the next few years. It was seen as something that could happen after, say 200 years of this kind of major volcanic activity. People are walking around saying they survived the ice age that was predicted for in the 1970s, like the ice age of the 1980s that didn't happen. Even this video wasn't predicting that. It had a disclaimer saying it wasn't predicting anything, necessarily. Just exploring what could happen given circumstances, such as the volcanism. Yes, we do take our climate stability for granted.

One of the environmental science classes I took, back in the 1970s, had a lecture about the stability of our climate over the past 10,000 years or so. A period of relative stability that allowed our civilization to develop. The lecturer's point was that more extreme weather could be the geological norm and we have just been lucky over the past 10,000 years. We've become complaisant. I also remember that there was less worry about global warming, back then. Scientists knew about the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but it wasn't being discussed in the media till the 1980s. Or at least that's my own recollection.

Was the energy crisis of the 1970s a hoax? I bought it and I still buy it today. Seemed like we would run out of fossil fuels, but today, we have an oil glut. What happened?

The idea of a hoax wasn't so much from conservatives, back then. Some liberals, in the 1970s, did think the energy crisis was a hoax. A hoax created by big oil corporations to raise the price.

I didn't buy the hoax idea as I am not a conspiracy theorist. The OPEC oil embargo was part of the problem. Yes that was a conspiracy, but the United States was also running out of "easy to pump" liquid petroleum. Yes the energy crisis was real.

Back then scientists knew we had lots of oil shale, however. Back in the days of Jimmy Carter, they thought the shale would have to be brought to the surface via strip mining and then crushed to extract the oil. It was the famous "Carter Synfuels Plan."

Well, since then, some new technology has been developed in the oil industry. They don't need to mine the shale. They just have to drill sideways, frack the shale formation and then let gravity do the work. Just let the oil drip down to sideways pipes that they laid under the shale formation; like a drain field. Bingo, the oil comes out more easily. It's why people are still able to easily afford driving cars and flying in jet planes today.

One can ask, will there be a similar fix to the global warming problems of today? A fix from future technology? How about geoengineering? Putting up some kind of reflection to partially shade the earth from the sun.

All of these fixes, so to speak, are problematic. Fracking of the shale brings worry about water contamination. Geoengineering the earth's reflectivity is truly a Pandora's box. It's also true that, at some point in the future, even our abundant supply of oil shale will be used up. We do need alternative energy.

Waiting for the Greyhound Bus, one time back in my college days, this conversation took place between me and a somewhat derelict looking fellow. We were discussing the energy crisis and I started to say that America was running out of oil. Before I could finish the sentence, he interrupted right after the words, "running out." In a very proud voice he said, "AMERICA Ain't A Runnun Out A Nothun."

High speed rail might be better as commuter rail than intercity rail in Pacific Northwest

There's some thought about doing building high speed rail from Portland, Oregon to Seattle and then to Vancouver, BC.

I just got to thinking that a better idea, given the state of our society, is to build the high speed rail from Seattle to Cle Elum, Washington. Make it a commuter rail, rather than an intercity rail.

I might be kind of a cynic, but this is what our society has come to. Housing is becoming so expensive, in Seattle area, that people often have to commute from way out. Cle Elum is on the east, sunny side of the Cascade Mountains. I hear that quite a few folks move there and still commute all the way to Seattle for at least the last years of their employment. They must be thinking of retiring in sunnier Cle Elum.

Could Cle Elum and Ellensburg become the new "East Side suburbs of Seattle? High speed rail could bring folks to Seattle in short order.

Meanwhile the idea of going from Seattle to Vancouver, BC or to Portland, for that matter, runs into the fear of existing property owners along the potential routes not wanting the rail line to bisect their neighborhoods. Going east, less people live in the Cascade Mountains. We would probably have to give up the Iron Horse Bicycle Trail, however. That would be the most likely route. The Iron Horse Trail is the old Milwaukee Road rail line. It even has it's own tunnel. I love the Iron Horse Trail, but I only get there once every few years.

Maybe the folks in Cle Elum / Ellensburg area wouldn't want to become a suburb of Seattle, however. It's kind of sick, in a way that it might come to that. Or maybe not. We, as humans, are sure capable of a lot of things. Cross the Cascades in less than 40 minutes? Earthworms can't do that. We have bigger brains to figure this stuff out.

As for speed, it does still look like the jet plane is still the preferred system for intercity long distance travel. High speed rail can't compete, so that's why I'm thinking commuter rail instead.

One advantage of rail, however, is getting around the increasing problem of airspace congestion at our airports. Seattle area may have pushed back that problem by opening up a new airport for commercial travel. Paine Field near Everett. Paine Field is now the an auxiliary airport for Seattle Metro. Bellingham is kind of an auxiliary airport for Vancouver, BC.

What about jet fuel and climate change, you ask? Maybe we need a carbon tax.

Meanwhile society keeps going sky high in more ways than one. Air travel and sky high property values around our major cities.

Why I waited to have a colonoscopy tho it was a good experience

Over a decade ago, I turned 50. The age people say it's time for a colonoscopy. I didn't schedule one immediately and my doctor wasn't too pushy about it. Yes, it's a good diagnostic tool, but my doctor agreed that what's most important is good diet, healthy lifestyle and lack of colon cancer in my family history. After those things, one might view the colonoscopy as just "icing on the cake." Both me and my doctor were avid bicyclists. His favorite quote, "an apple a day keeps the doctor away."

13 years later, I did finally go in for the colonoscopy. It wasn't bad and the diagnosis wasn't that bad either. In my case, waiting wasn't a problem. This isn't necessarily an argument for everyone to wait. It's just my situation. When I did finally get the procedure, they found one polyp which was removed. It was non cancerous. They say I'm good to go for at least another 5 years.

Here's the story of what lead me to finally getting that exam and what the experience was like.

What's called the ick factor is the main reason I waited. It's kind of an unpleasant thought. Still, quite a few people, I know, go in for their colonoscopies. One hears the stories. They say, it doesn't hurt, the prep is a bit inconvenient, the worst part is the prep, the whole process can be an interesting experience in a positive way.

The most reassuring stories were from folks that were awake during the procedure. I guess it wasn't that uncomfortable. Still, most people go for being sedated.

There's also the politics of medicine. Another reason I waited. From what I gather, colonoscopies are less common in Canada. Everyone gets healthcare in Canada, but that means they tend to be more sparing on the costs of procedures. In Canada, they often use another, much less expensive test as the first line of defense against colon cancer. The Hemoccult Test. In Canada, they may have a lower cancer rate than USA partially because they can afford healthcare for everyone.

The Hemoccult Test is where one places stool on a card and sends it into the lab. If blood is not found, one is probably good to go. Some circles say this is almost as good as getting the colonoscopy. Maybe that's why Canada can afford to offer healthcare to all. It's less of a Cadillac treatment, but good enough. From what I hear, hemoccult is coming back into style, at least in some circles, down here in USA.

For several years, I took the hemoccult test each year. It's better than nothing. I eat lots of apples, salads and have an active lifestyle.

Around the time I turned 63 the hemoccult found some blood. At first I thought I had made a mistake on the test and my doctor even allowed me to take it a second time. That hemoccult required a prescription. The second test also showed blood so I decided I'd try the colonoscopy. That's the hemoccult doing it's job.

I quickly went to the clinic for colonoscopy and set up an appointment. Due to my good health and no other symptoms, it took quite a while to get scheduled. A busy appointment book. The appointment was scheduled around 6 months in advance.

The various stories I heard, from other folks who had the procedure were reassuring as far as the ick factor is concerned. Also it was covered by my insurance. Maybe it would be interesting. Might as well think of it in that way. Lots of technology. Sort of an adventure.

After the procedure, I wanted to eat my first meal at the nearby Saint Joe's Hospital here in Bellingham. It has a large cafeteria that one can just go to without having to be "in the hospital." One reason I wanted to go there was that a cafeteria provides a wide variety of foods. The prep cleans out your colon so I though it might set back one's internal microbiome. My theory is that a good way for the first meal to rebuild the biome is this. Just sample a little bit of what one normally has as their diet throughout the day. The cafeteria provides lots of choices. Rather than just having one type of food, like for instance what you always have for breakfast, sample some of what you eat all throughout the day. In my case, a bit of chocolate milk, salad, apple, main course, snack food and so forth.

It seemed to work okay and it was fun to check out that cafeteria; a place most people wouldn't think to go for local restaurant fare.

To do that test, one needs to fast for at least a day prior. There's instructions one follows. Then there's the drinking of the prep fluid. That's to clean out the colon so they can see what' there.

I was a bit apprehensive. Would it upset my stomach. I'm a sissy about my stomach as I never get stomach aces. Everyone assured me that it doesn't upset the stomach, normally. They did say, kind of jokingly, have fun you'll be living in the bathroom, its diarrhea.

I gradually drank the first bout of the fluid and waited. Even that wasn't too bad. Eventually I had a few liquid bowel movements. No stomach problem. After a few trips to the bathroom, it was just a matter of waiting. Watching videos or whatever. I wasn't necessarily living in the bathroom. Just close to the bathroom, but after while the fluid had passed through.

Then there was the second bout of drinking the prep, around 8 hours later. A few more trips to the bathroom.

Time for the appointment a kind friend took me to the clinic and agreed to pick me up afterwards. The clinic I went to requires that.

Then there's more waiting. One goes into an area with many sections divided by curtains. It's a busy clinic and people are being processed through. It's interesting, in a way, how it's all choreographed.

They put a needle in my arm for later inserting an IV. It's not painful, or at least it's kind of like getting a blood test. Nurse were friendly. Talking to the nurses helped me deal with being nervous. I was less nervous than I had feared.

One nurse stuck around for a while and we got into a conversation about the Mars Rovers. She was asking me questions about it. That helped to pass the time.

Part of the time, the nurses were busy at other stations, but I survived.

In a bit over an hour, I think, it was time to be rolled in to procedure. The whole thing is, basically almost over at this point.

I remember being rolled in and then I remember being back in the room where they were I started. Two nurses standing by the bed saying, "we're done."

Pretty impressive. It was like they had flipped a master switch and turned me off, then back on again. When I came to, I wasn't even groggy. They said I was good to go, but should take it easy the rest of the day.

Other folks might have a different experience, but I was impressed how alert I was as soon as I came too. It was like, "we're all done." Time to check out that cafeteria. The friend who brought me to the procedure treated me to lunch where I wanted to go. The St. Joseph's Cafeteria.

Maybe the best Brexit strategy now is hard exit and then try and get an easy path back into EU if Brexit is too painful

The deadline for Britain to leave European Union is coming closer. March 29. I think it was a bad idea all along and now they can't decide what type of Brexit they want. Looks like they will get the so called "Hard Brexit" by defalt; an exit without a deal. Maybe they will ask for another delay, but I doubt a delay would change anything.

If they don't cancel Brexit, I guess they should just have the hard exit. See what happens. I think they should try and get a deal from the EU where they can easily rejoin the EU if it doesn't work out.

Looks like the UK parliament may chicken out and try to extend the deadline, but the EU has to approve this also. EU may not go for anymore procrastination. I like the old phrase, "be careful what you ask for cause you might get it."

I have a new album of photos and descriptions. Stories about my childhood.

Regent's Hill on WSU campus. A different kind of place to play

See My Childhood Album on Flickr.

My cautious support for Trump Administration's global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality. Important reservations and questions also.

There could be at least some good things coming from the Trump Administration. Trump administration launches global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality. The administration is responding in part to a reported hanging of a young gay man in Iran, Trump’s top geopolitical foe.

At the same time, there's quite a bit of reservation about the motives and whether this administration is up to the task.

U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, the highest-profile openly gay person in the Trump administration, is leading the effort, which kicks off Tuesday (Feb. 19 2019) evening in Berlin.

Some people fear that this could be mostly a ploy to get European nations more on board with scrapping the Iran nuclear deal and further ratcheting up the sanctions against Iran. In my mind, there is an important question here. A question over what the best strategy is toward a country that threatens its neighbors and abuses human rights. Should there be engagement or isolation? Maybe Obama's nuclear deal with careful engagement was a better strategy than Trump's plans for total isolation? Who knows for sure.

Folks also question why so much focus on Iran when gay rights is also not respected in close US allies; such as Saudi Arabia. The Trump administration is doing some things toward reform in places like Saudi Arabia, but why a much more isolating strategy with Iran? I'd ask, are we taking sides in the Sunni Shiite conflict?

Then there is the questions about the Trump administration's record on gay rights and transgender issues at home. Do the problems of the Trump administration on a wide range of issues discredit any good initiatives that come out of that administration?

I continue to hope for the best.

Forward Washington Transportation plan sounds a bit similar to my gas tax / carbon tax combo idea

They are thinking of combining the idea of a carbon tax with the gas tax. Almost like the idea I was conjuring up last summer. See my blog entry from August. This bill isn't the same as my idea, but it's surprisingly close. Called the Forward Washington Transportation Plan introduced by state Senator Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens.

There's a need to raise money for Washington's roads and other transportation systems. Much of the need is environmental. US Supreme Court has recently ruled that our state must take out a lot of culverts under roads. Widen river crossings under many roads to enhance salmon habitat and maybe save the whales.

Carbon tax and the gas tax are sort of like cousins.

Follow above link to my blog entry from last August with a somewhat similar line of thinking.

I am hoping the governor of Virginia can be forgiven. In 1980 a gay rights activist friend of mine was still in the closet trying to pray the gay away.

I'm hoping the governor of Virginia, who supposedly did black face at a party in 1980, can be forgiven. A friend of mine, who is a gay rights activist, pointed out that in 1980, he (this friend) was in a Pentecostal church trying to pray the gay away. Since then, my friend came out of the closet.

People do evolve. In Virginia, it looks like the 2 other Democrats, that could be in line for governor, are also tainted. 3rd in line is a Republican. Of course maybe being a Republican isn't necessarily an automatic indictment; if one supports Republican ideals.

One virtue in society is compassion. Zero tolerance can go too far. Given how much worry there is about global warming, it is conceivable that at some future time, politicians who had a history of flying in jet planes or driving automobiles, while fully knowing those effects on the planet, could be seen as tainted and ask to resign.

When they say where's global warming, they can't see it above the atmospheric noise

We finally got some winter. Seems like Bellingham winters have been a bit milder than normal over recent years. This is more normal. We get a hard winter every few years.

Some people might ask where's the global warming? Here's my reply.

So far, global warming only accounts for worldwide average temp rise of around 2 degrees C since 1900. It can still be snowy in the winter, but I think cold years are getting less frequent in this area. Over the long run, most glaciers are still retreating, precipitation patterns are still changing, growing seasons are still getting longer and sea levels are still rising. It's subtle so far and often still buried in the noise of normal weather variation from day to day, year to year.

Some models predict that there could be more of a temperature rise by 2100. More than just around 2 C. More like 4 to even 8 degree rise. That would really be serious. The situation could be accelerating due to population growth and growing prosperity; especially in developing nations. Also there's talk of feedback effects with methane and so forth. Hopefully these predictions will not come true. We can make some changes.

They say 5% of population accounts for 50% of medical cost in USA.

"Medicare for All" proposals. What would they cost? How would they work?

One thing mentioned in the show that stood out in my mind is this. Only 5% of our population accounts for 50% of all medical expenses. It's inhumane, but easy to think, under our present system, that fiscal conservatives are tempted to just cut off that 5%; like euthanize 5% to benefit the 95%. For instance the situation with insurance companies and preexisting conditions.

On the other hand, Medicare for All would mean higher taxes, but for most people it could be a savings as it would also mean not having to pay health insurance premiums; a savings for low to moderate income folks.

For wealthy and upper middle class folks, it could mean a loss over the present system. They wouldn't owe insurance premiums, but their taxes would be a lot higher since taxes would likely be graduated by income.

For some medical professionals, it could mean a loss of income as single payer would be better at holding down medical costs. USA has the most costly healthcare system in the world.

In some cases, Medicare for All might still mean paying premiums as there are different versions of our current Medicare system; such as Medicare Advantage. Our current Medicare system, that is for seniors, is not necessarily all single payer. It also includes a lot of the hybrid public / private plans such as Medicare Advantage.

There are a lot of different versions of Medicare so there are various versions of Medicare for All proposals.

UK should have another vote on Brexit now that the choices are better understood.

Since Brexit supporters can't agree on what type of Brexit they want, I think there should be another referendum. This time have the referendum be a choice between Theresa May's specific Brexit agreement, versus staying in the EU. If the British people vote for Brexit again, it would automatically be Theresa's plan. No need to consult Parliament. Less complexity. Her specific plan ready to implement. If they vote no, Britain stays in the EU.

Another idea is a 3 way vote. Hard Brexit, Theresa May's already negotiated plan, or option 3 stay in the EU. See comments for why I added the hard Brexit option.

The national debt ceiling. A useless alarm clock with a broken snooze button

The debt ceiling is like an alarm clock that keeps going off. "Warning, we're way in debt," like duh. It's old news. We have to keep hitting the snooze button to turn the dam thing off till it rings again.

Now it's getting even worse as there's a gremlin sitting on the snooze button making demands like, "more money for a wall." "Fork up the money before you can push snooze again."

We ought to just toss that stupid alarm clock out the window. As long as we keep increasing the military budget, lowering taxes and needing more Medicare, we're not going to heed that alarm anyway. It just adds to the bickering that leads to more anxiety and probably more medical expense.

We've had plenty of radical thinking from the right. Now it's time for some radical ideas from the left about climate change.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Proposal for a 70% tax on the wealthy to fund climate change reduction plan.

Who knows what can actually happen, but this is worthy of discussion. As she is advocating, change may need to happen faster than what we normally expect.

I'm in favor of taxing the wealthy, but allowing exemption for business expenses, such as capital expansion. If the money is invested in running and expanding the business, fine, but if it just goes to the personal wealth of the owners and executives, yes, tax it heavily.

Many solutions to address the carbon footprint do effect lower income people. Average folks can consume lots in their cars, home heating and even putting food on the table. That's why it's hard to pass things like carbon taxes. These type of taxes tend to be regressive. Lots of low income people, who drive and so forth, feel strapped.

To really get people to do something about climate change, we may need to create the impression that the wealthy are paying also. Yes, raising income taxes on the wealthy is a good compliment to some of the things that ordinary people need to do to lower the carbon footprint. Remember, it is ordinary people who drive the markets, to a large extent, but ordinary people aren't likely to change unless they feel they are being treated fairly.

These big changes don't have to be seen as sacrifices. Maybe using things like public transit and bicycles can be better than addiction to the automobile. Depends on circumstances and attitudes. I does work for me. I'll admit I am a bit unusual.

There's also new technology such as electric cars that are charged from a power grid based on solar energy.

Ending fossil fuel emissions in 10 years is a tall order, but maybe it can happen.

The wealthy corporate owners often blame average people for the way things are. The corporations say they have to follow the market which is made up of average people who are just trying to get by. Just trying to raise families. Corporations also blame regulation. It's kind of a vicious cycle that keeps us from solving climate change. Keeps us in the status quo. Average people living their consumptive lives and corporations promoting and profiting from that. Laws which hold people into it.

We are entering a time when the whole thing is starting to unravel and maybe change more radically. Hopefully for the good.

Some mistakes that unions have made in the past. Could unions make a comeback?

I think unions kind of shot themselves in the food back in the 1970s and 80s. Now they have little clout, but could make a comeback. I remember when unions mostly cared about raising the wages of their members; like the auto workers, but didn't seem to care about workers outside the union. It was almost like the union was an exclusive club. Meanwhile, more and more workers fell through the cracks and weren't in a union. They fell through the cracks not having healthcare and so forth. Back in the 1980s, it seemed like it was hard to get into a union. I heard rumors that you almost had to have relatives in the union or some special in to get an apprenticeship in some of the local trade unions for becoming a plummer or electrician. This may be easier now as there is more o a shortage of skilled tradespeople.

Maybe a height of union hypocrisy was when the Air Controllers Union endorsed Reagan for President in 1980. Soon after that, they did go on strike and Reagan fired them. That was a famous issue, back in the early 1980s. My guess is, they regretted endorsing Reagan after he fired them. He fired them as part of his push to crack down on domestic spending and what he saw as out of control government employees. The Air Controllers may have had some legitimate grievances about working conditions, and so forth. I'm sure they regretted thinking Reagan would make an exception for them. Members of other unions, during that strike, ask "where were the Air Controllers when we needed you, back when you were endorsing Reagan?"

Unions need to be more than just exclusive clubs for their members if they want political success at the ballot box.

Another problem with unions was the rigid work schedules and lack of adjustment to the needs of part time workers. Lack of flexibility. A big problem for transit systems where they need lots of bus drivers during the morning commute and less in mid day. Also a problem for individual workers who needed flexible schedules for other things outside the job like travel or schooling. Unions would worry that allowing for flexibility would make it easier for employers to cut back on people's hours, thus cutting their livelihood.

I think union thinking has improved over recent years, but their power base is diminished. What's left of unions, today, are doing more to support all workers by caring about things like universal healthcare and minimum wage. Caring more for people beyond just the members of the union, but it's a bit late. Union influence has declined, but could it make a comeback?

These things I wrote on Facebook after listening to this segment of On Point. Unemployment Down, Wages Stagnant, Retirement Difficult: An Economic Survey.

Wages still lagging behind the economic recovery, tho they may be picking up slightly. Why is the trend toward economic growth not reflected in wages? This interview on WBUR's On Point Radio presents a few ideas, but not my own idea. I'll mention some of the ideas and my own idea in comments. Each of the ideas is valid in its own way. The interview blamed a lot of the decline in wages on the loss of unions over past decades.

Here's another idea I come up with that doesn't directly relate to unions.

One of many things effecting wages is how technology and globalization has put downward pressure on prices in many sectors, such as in journalism and food production. At the same time the value and cost of homes has skyrocketed. Low prices can mean abundance of things like food and crowd sourced journalism, but companies can't pay higher wages in those sectors if they can't sell their products for more. Meanwhile things like healthcare costs, go up. Wages for certain professions like lawyers and hospital executives go up and get out of line with the rest of society.

Obama baked the economic recovery cake, Trump adds frosting; wants more frosting

Mr. Trump fears that our country could be sliding into another recession and that's why he would like the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates low; like maintaining a sugar high of printed money. Problem is, that's not very sustainable in the long run, tho we've had rock bottom interest rates for may years, during several administrations, Obama and Bush included.

I think one problem is the combination of cheap money and Republican policies of low domestic spending. Cheap money can drive up house values, while tight spending policies means less money for programs such as HUD's affordable housing. This adds to homelessness.

We could print money and spend liberally on the social service side, but if we do that too much, we end up in a real mess; like happened in Venezuela. Somehow, we need to find sustainable and equitable balance.

A history of my erotic fetish. Kind of a mild and unusual fetish, I guess

As a child growing up in the college town of Pullman, WA. I didn't really have the concept of gay sexuality. Partially because I was in my own world and also it just wasn't talked about in the Pullman of the 1960s.

Naive ignorance, I guess.

I found myself attracted to the shape of the body of slim guys with long hair. The hippie culture was in the news. It was a turn on to see people showering at the campus pools.

Toward the end of high school and heading off to college, gay issues started surfacing. At first it was seen as a human rights topic. I was lucky to have enlightened parents who went to a liberal church; United Church of Christ. Today, that denomination has big contingents in gay parades.

I didn't hear the term faggot till I got to my freshman dorm at what's now Western Washington University, here in Bellingham. People in that dorm seemed shallow and prejudice. I would debate theology with some of the conservative Christians. Others, in the dorm just seemed like drunkards.

Eventually I went to a gay rap group on campus (back then discussion groups were often called "rap groups" I guess for rapport). This was partially to spite the "Christian" who lived across the hall from me in my dorm. I told him that Jesus hung out with oppressed peoples. It helped, at the time, to be taking a class on Mahatma Gandhi.

Folks in that dorm were at least kind of light hearted. I was the dorm eccentric.

This led me to start participating in the gay political group on campus; a world mostly made up of lesbian women.

My first time in a gay bar was a class field trip to the Hut Tavern which had just opened in Bellingham. This was during a class on the gay rights movement, taught by Fairhaven College Professor David Mason.

While I was getting politically involved, I really had no desire for sexual intercourse. The thought of anal or oral intercourse didn't appeal to me. This lack of interest in intercourse was reinforced by the AIDS epidemic. The idea of getting a blow job had no appeal to me. I wanted to get to know the person better. At least see the face.

Being part of a couple, tho, was not that appealing also. I'm probably the type of person that people would swipe past if I were on dating apps. I'm popular, in my own way; in a friendship way. Maybe, if I lived in a big metropolitan area there would be a lot more choices. Sometimes I wonder how my life would be different if I lived in a big metro area. At the same time, I don't seem to miss dating.

I've always been a bit awkward and unusual. Now I'm in the past 50 years of my life which, most likely, get swiped past a lot on dating apps in Bellingham.

Growing up, I thought masturbation was an involuntary wet dream. It took my campus counselor to explain that masturbation could be done while one is awake. Eventually I started enjoying masturbation, but it took a while to get used to the idea.

One sexual minority is asexual or celibate. To be unique, I thought I would describe myself as asexual; a part of the sexual minority spectrum. Attracted to guys, but not sexually active. Most of the other gay activists, around me, were women, at that time anyway.

Seeing long haired men in the gym shower was still a turn on. I wasn't obvious, in public, but it fed my masturbation fantasies after I got home well away from other people. For some reason, I didn't connect this fetish to my political life in the gay student group. I still thought I was asexual.

After graduating from college, I began to think, maybe I do have a legitimate sexual life. I'm turned on by getting to know people, seeing attractive folks in the nude and mingling. If others find me attractive, it's flattering. Still no interest in intercourse or being in the drama of a relationship, however. As time goes on, my attraction for men has widened to beyond just folks with long hair.

The bar never interested me much during my youth. Maybe I wasted my youth not going out dancing. The cigarette smoke and superficial conversation of the bars turned me off.

One time I remember having a discussion with the liberal minister of the church, I grew up in. It was about gay life and going to the bar. That minister was cautiously liberal and said he was probably the first pastor to breach the subject of gay rights from the pulpit at that church. We'd have some heart to heart talks in his office and I remember saying it was hard to discuss interesting topics, like economics, in a noisy bar. As I left to head back to Bellingham, he said, with a twinkle in his eye, "keep up the good work trying to discuss economics in the bar." It was an Lol moment.

By the mid 1980s, I started to discover the fun of dancing. Now, many years later, I still like to dance. I missed some of the normal play of youth, but I also missed a lot of the health hazards. It's taken me a while to "get" why people like to party and dance. Now that a lot of my friends, who liked to party during my youth, are in recovery; if still alive, I'm ready to party. Healthy partying, however. Free form ecstatic dance anyone?

Also I enjoy getting to know people and having intelligent conversation; especially in places of nudity. Seems like places of nudity are among the friendliest spots for conversation. Saunas and hot springs, for instance. Sometimes people are quiet. I'm not real outgoing, but folks often do start up conversation. For some reason, intelligent discussions come easier at those kinds of places than in a lot of other settings.

Bars can be too loud or too drunk, everyone is on their computers at coffee shops. Discussion groups can be good, but they are rare, most folks are in too big a hurry at the supermarket, but I do know lots of folks in town so serendipitous conversation can happen. Concerts, films or lectures; it's still better to go where people are interacting, rather than just watching the stage.

I'm pretty involved in a lot of community things and have friends from many orientations. It's hard to imagine not living alone. It's also hard to imagine not having lots of friends.

Since I'm not into being part of a couple, or intercourse, my sexuality must be kind of unusual. Maybe it's a fetish, but a very mild fetish, indeed.

Can geoengineering address climate change the way fracking reduced the energy crisis?

When I was in college, I thought, for sure, we were running out of oil. Pretty much everyone thought that with the gas lines and price hikes of the 1970s. I was looking forward to a future of bicycling and public transit. Liquid petroleum was running out and oil shale was expensive. Back then, they thought the shale would have to be dug up from mines, crushed and cooked. Gasoline prices would be through the roof and we'd have to go solar.

Little did I know that they found an answer. Fracking. Oil is now cheap, compared to the rest of the economy, but today's worry is global warming. There's still plenty of fossil fuel in the ground, but carbon emissions are changing the climate.

As with the oil running out, it seems like an unsolvable problem, but maybe they will find another workaround? Geoengineering? Will we do something like put artificial sunshades above the earth? Solar energy is getting less expensive as well. Who knows.

Back in college, I was hoping the automobile would die along with it's highway traffic death toll of 30-40 thousand Americans per year. Little did I know that the self driving car would come to the rescue, or at least I hope it comes to the rescue. I'm almost always for accepting change.

In Canada, they don't have the Obamacare Mandate. It's just universal care and the mandate is taxes

People grumbled about the Obamacare mandate that everyone had to have insurance. Mandating a purchase was thought to be unconstitutional.

In Canada, they don't have the mandate, they just call it a tax. In Canada, the taxes are a bit higher, but everyone gets health coverage. It's a system of universal coverage. Single payer, for the most part. Down here it looked like people were being forced to buy a product they didn't want because it was called a premium that's paid to private companies. In Canada, it's a tax.

In both countries, the system works best if it's pretty much universal. That's because when people are given a choice, they wait till they are sick or high risk to buy insurance. This drives up the premiums.

Without the mandate, Obamacare becomes more unstable and the recent court decision, in Texas, is attempting to scrap the whole program. That means pulling the plug on millions of people. Even hardened Republicans, including Trump himself, must realize that pulling the plug is really "staring right into the abyss."

That is why even Trump says Obamacare will keep going until this can get sorted out. He wants a "replacement for Obamacare." Problem is there's probably no way around the need for higher income people to pay more so lower income people can still afford healthcare. This is especially true with the income gap being so high in USA.

The only other alternatives, that I see, would be figuring out how to drastically reduce the cost of healthcare. If people, on average, were healthier and used the system less often, and/or if the system wasn't so expensive, it might work. I don't see the politicians talking that much about strategies for accomplishing that.

How about my bicycling lifestyle, but I realize that doesn't work for everyone. My health is, most likely, a combination of choice and luck. To be honest, luck is part of the equation. A friend of mine attributes his health, in part, to choosing good grandparents. "Choosing?" The genetic lottery.

I've heard the phrase, "a watched pot never boils."

I hear that dating is pretty much totally on-line these days. I've never really dated tho. I guess one bad thing about dating and especially on-line dating is that the focus is totally on trying to find a mate. Ironically, its often more likely to find a quality mate when one is not expecting it. When people meet for other reasons, they can sometimes grow on each other; so to speak. They find out how much they like one another given time. In some cases, the mate might not even be someone you would expect on first impression. You might not give that person a chance from just the impression when looking for a mate, but as people mingle, over time, they can learn more about each other. They can grow and change together. The situation can evolve. Maybe they do decide to be mates, but that isn't necessarily the original intent. The pragmatic goal of procuring a mate isn't the main focus, but ironically that might be the best strategy. I use the word "procure" as it does seem like a lot of people's focus when they are mate shopping is too pragmatic, rather than broad minded.

A refute for the "nature causes climate change anyway" argument

People who think global warming doesn't matter because nature changes climate every so often anyway are kind of blowing off civilization as if civilization doesn't matter. Yes, maybe nature wipes the slate clean every once in a while with things like ice ages, asteroid strikes and times when there are palm trees at the Arctic Circle. Would we want big changes, like that, in the next few decades? Those changes happened thousands and millions of years ago; before civilization as we know it.

Going forward, nature may have not scheduled changes, like that, for a few thousand more years. Our modern civilization has only been around, maybe 200 years. Given nature, we could go another thousand, or so, years. That is if we don't blow it ourselves. Think of all the things we've accomplished in the past 200 years. What could we accomplish in just another 200 years? Do we really want to wipe the slate now?

Yes, nature could wipe the slate with something like an asteroid strike in the next few decades, but that isn't very likely. Nature works on a different time scale than our "flash in the pan" civilization. Still, I like our civilization. It would be nice to keep it around for another few hundred years at least.

Should California have different types of forests due to the future of drought?

When Trump visits California, I hear that he blames the fires on forests that need to be thinned, rather than drought and global warming. Maybe there's a bit of truth in both places.

For sure, it's mostly drought. Even managed pasture lands are too dry. There isn't much one can do if the rain doesn't fall. On the other hand, California's long term prognosis is trending dry according to many of the climate scientists. Does that mean different forest management practices? This may mean we can't hang onto our forests of the past.

Yes, the forests might need more thinning, or different management techniques. Also think about what type of plants are growing there. Should we switch to more drought tolerant species? California oak at higher elevations? Less flammable conifer? More deciduous trees?

As a disclaimer I should say that I know just enough about forestry to make me dangerous. Maybe that isn't knowing quite enough.

Should we be building the new type of forest like we're in charge? Humans in the driver's seat? Sorry mother nature. There's 7.5 billion people on this planet. More and more people in the driver's seat, so to speak. Using fossil fuels at least until solar energy really takes hold. We do really need to push alternative transportation and alternative energy more. Birth control also.

Liberal minded folks, in California, will say that much of the state's forest land is managed by the federal government, not California. I guess that opens the door for Trump to blame Obama for the problems.

A California forest management person was on one of these shows I listen to, I forget which one. KQED Forum, in San Francisco? WBUR, Boston?

Anyway, he mentioned the need to use forests for sequestering carbon. That goal may conflict with the idea of thinning the forests to address the fire hazard. I got to thinking that these conflicting goals can be taken into account in deciding what types of vegetation they use for replanting the forests. Keeping in mind the possibility of a dryer California, are there plants that still sequester the carbon as well as the original forest types in each region?

Lowering ones age for the dating sites and other reasons

As gender categories become less rigid, what about age categories? Dutch man attempts to legally lower his age. The doctor says he's got the health of a younger person so how about making that official? Lowering one's legal age. Apparently he's even willing to forfeit those years paid into a pension plan. He must be able to afford that. A big motivation for wanting to lower one's age is dating. A younger age makes one's profile more competitive on dating sites like Tinder. That's a big factor.

It still seems like a lot of bother to go through for a more popular profile. I'd rather just find less competitive connections to community than the dating games.