Overpopulation, a driver behind US and worldwide resentment toward immigration.

I think one of the reasons why there is resentment to immigration in many countries has to do with population growth.

US population has grown, recently due mostly to immigration, but imagine what it would be like if US population grew as fast as overall world population. Since 1960, world population has grown by 173% while US population (including immigration) has only grown by 116% (I looked up in Google AI).

I think the high footprint of the average American lifestyle makes population growth more of an environmental problem. Imagine what traffic would be like if the American population had grown by 173% since 1960 instead of only 116%.

Now, world population growth is slowing down, but at the same time the average footprint of individuals, worldwide, grows closer to the footprint of the average American. The average footprint of citizens worldwide is still much smaller than Americans, but look at the math. The world is gridlocked if trying to live like Americans.

Does US get too much of the blame for climate change?

Interesting graph showing how much global economy has grown in recent decades. Source World Bank, 2019 data.

I think that growth of the global economy is the main reason why climate change is a big issue today. The global economy is much bigger than it was in 1960.

The US economy has grown also, but it's share of the entire global economy has gone down. Most of the global growth has been elsewhere, where much of the world's large population has risen out of poverty.

Size of the US economy, per person (per capita) is still close to top worldwide, but with only 347 million in US, versus 8 billion people worldwide, the US share of total economic production has gone down as a percent of world economy. Graph from 1960-2019 figures.

My views seen through the lens of my own interpretation.

I think the US gets too much of the blame for climate change, but the blame is somewhat merited as the US is a world leader. The US still sets the pace for much of the world, but the world follows.

I think some of the right wing trend in US is a reaction to being blamed. Human nature tends to rebel against criticism.

Since the last election brought Republicans back into power, the US government has basically given up on trying to address climate change. I think some of the psychology behind this is out of spite; like a kid in the classroom rebelling against being lectured at; especially while carbon emissions, worldwide, have outpaced US emissions.

Blame of US and other rich nations, from a world where carbon emissions are growing worldwide, has contributed to resentment politics and the rise of right wing politics.

Still emissions per person, in US, are among the highest in the world.

Car use, in US is around 92% of surface commutes, home sizes are larger also.

Worldwide, the total problem is bigger due to world population being 8 billion versus just 347 million. I saw, recently that commutes by car are around 51% globally now. Much of the world is now driving cars.

In many cases it is better to vote for the lesser of two evils if someone much worse is the only other viable choice on the ballot.

If Democrats could just get a few more votes in next year's midterms, they could take back the ability of Congress to restrain Trump's dictatorial powers. This, even in spite of Republican dominated Supreme Court. Even moderate Democrats, still backed by capitalistic interests, would make a big difference. A decisive popular popular vote margin in congressional districts can even overcome gerrymanduring.

As for politicians not backed by big money, they don't get name recognition across this big country. I hear that even Bernie Sanders is among the 1%. He has made more headway than other leftwing politicians, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who tend to only appeal in central cities of certain metropolitan areas. Rural people tend to be more conservative. Suburban people are a huge chunk of our population and they tend to be a tossup.

While our current capitalist / government system is not perfect, it does tend to prop up a certain amount of prosperity and convenience for voters across this country. Big changes, such as significantly high carbon taxes / gas taxes to address climate change cause voter rebellion.

Personally, I would like to see a somewhat radically different world that is less dependent on consumerism, private automobiles and things like single family neighborhoods. I would like to see less wealth inequality.

Even big changes in taxes, to tax wealthy folks and corporations more, is likely to have consequences for the consuming and working middle class. I would be okay with many of those changes as I am critical of the large incomes that even non 1% high income professionals make. I notice things like the vast wealth gap between homeowners and renters, for instance.

I tend to be critical of more than just the wealth of business (including corporations that people like to shop at) as I think making changes there would ripple down through the whole system.

Meanwhile, even the middle class and especially upper middle class is likely to want to hold onto the status quo enough to create large pushback against radical change. Incremental change can still work.

Moderate Democrats, even those funded by big money, can at least hold the line against one party, one person rule of Trump.

Today, it seems like our biggest hope, before the next year's midterm election, is for more congressional Republicans to break with Trump. If more Republicans were to side with the block of minority Democrats trying to hold the line in Congress, that would make a big difference. Life in states, with Democratic majorities in state governments, seems to be better as well.

Some people are cynical enough to want to throw out the whole system; thus not even supporting moderate Democrats. I say, about that, "be careful what you ask for as you might get it." Our system, thrown into total chaos and / or complete authoritarian rule, would be very uncomfortable to say the least.

Artificial intelligence can answer questions, from individuals in the public, when experts, in various fields, don't have time for this kind of dialog.

I have been starting to use artificial intelligence to ask questions that arise from my unique perspectives about economics and to some extent about physics. Answers have been surprisingly useful. It's kind of like dialoging with experts.

I find that most human experts don't have the time to discuss these topics with me. Yes, I enjoy the discussions I have with ordinary people, both online and in person, but experts in economics and scientists tend to not have the time to dialog with people from the general public.

I am aware of the old phrase "garbage in, garbage out" when it comes to answers from machines, but the answers I am getting make good sense to me. I have posed a few questions in Google Search and AI comes up with a summery of answers that seem quite useful to me.

Over time, I'm planning to share results from some of these discussions.

Can Washington State's Climate Commitment Act survive politically as it continues ratcheting up as time goes on?

People often complain that Washington State has among the highest gas prices in USA. A big part of that cost is our Climate Commitment Act which, basically, taxes fossil fuel and funds things like improvements to public transit. I don't drive, myself, so public transit and bicycling is my means of transportation.

I think that tax is written so as to ratchet up each year as it strives to push us toward transitioning away from fossil fuels.

The law survived an attempt at the ballot, last year, to repeal it. Still, as it ratchets up, it may face more pressure to repeal. I got to thinking that if it faces a precarious future it could possibly be capped so as to not ratchet up, but remain in place at its present form. This could continue things that it currently funds at their current levels.

Due to pressure from the Republican Party to give up on doing anything about climate change, plus the continuing rising cost from the ratcheting, that law may face continued pressure to repeal.

Glad it at least survived last year's election. Washington State tends to vote more liberal than nationwide.

It still isn't my favorite idea as I think a simple carbon tax would be better. This is a cap and trade law which is more complicated, but still better than nothing.

Automation can do a better job at drawing congressional districts than people can.

One thing that automation may be better at than people is the drawing of district lines for congressional districts.

I remember hearing, a few years back, that someone wrote a computer program to automatically draw district lines on a map. Two main criteria used were even population between districts and compactness of the districts.

They put the population data and map into the computer and let if automatically draw the lines. Nothing is perfect and it may still take some tweaking, but people, especially politicians fail at this. Here is where machines might do a better job.

Even an independent commission may not be as good as a machine at this, even though I am aware of the term "garbage in garbage out." Still I think the machines might do a lot better.

Just cause nature changed climate thousands of years ago doesn't mean it won't hurt us if we cause climate change while civilization is here.

Some right wingers think that climate change is no problem because earth's climate has changed naturally for years.

Does that mean it's okay for much of Florida's homes and businesses to be flooded in the near future just because those same areas were under water 2.5 million years ago during the Pliocene Era?

Problem is, there are houses on that land now.

Back in the Pliocene, the houses and businesses were not there to care. Today, people might worry if their houses flood, or maybe their children and grandchildren will experience that.

What caused the warming in the Pliocene before humans walked this planet? I did some Google and AI searching. A period of volcanism may have touched off the warming along with other things. There were probably feedback loops; such as the melting of polar ice which caused the earth to be less reflective of sunlight. Panama may have not blocked the flow of ocean water between Pacific and Atlantic Oceans so circulation was different. Remember, this was millions of years ago; not just a few centuries during human times.

Nature can make some dramatic changes, but while our human economy is here, we'd rather the changes not happen in the near future. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we cause warming to happen in the next few decades, but if we wait for nature to do it, which inevitably happens, it could still give us thousands of years for civilization to flourish.

Some right wingers may not understand the difference between geological time scales and human time scales that we use to run the economy, live our lives, write insurance policies, do what we think of as "long range planning" and so forth.

Map I found from Wikimedia commons.

A tariff is a more regressive tax than an income tax.

A tariff is a tax. It's like a sales tax on imported items purchased by American people and businesses. Sales taxes tend to be more regressive than income taxes.

Income taxes tend to be more progressive meaning the percentage of income paid in tax goes up for higher income people. A regressive tax means lower income people tend to pay a higher percent of their income in tax.

A bias against new development seen as for profit, yet reselling existing properties can be more profitable.

Building more housing is a way to address the housing shortage and affordability crisis. At the same time, lots of people are suspicious of developers thinking they are profit hungry. This drives some of the nimbyism against new construction.

I got to thinking that new construction may be less profitable than the reselling of existing homes and buildings that have appreciated in value. Existing real estate can bring big windfall profits. New construction is likely to be a more risky investment due to the cost of construction and the possibility of short turn market downturns soon after construction.

Reselling, sometimes even flipping, existing real estate seems overly profitable. This idea just popped into my head a few days ago while biking somewhere.

This idea relates to a thought I have about interest rates and the talk about the Federal Reserve. I've often thought that there should be at least two different interest rates rather than a "one size fits all" rate.

Couldn't there be a lower interest rate for creating new assets and a higher interest rate for reselling existing assets? This could help to curb speculation on existing assets whether they be homes or stocks and it would encourage the creation of new assets, such as housing. It's one thing that might make it easier to create more housing in areas experiencing population growth. also the creation of new sources of jobs.

Bottom line is new development may not be as bad for affordability as reselling of old developments in a housing market that experiences significant appreciation.

Lots of existing homeowners do benefit from market appreciation so that makes it easier to point fingers at new construction, thus driving some of the nimbyism.

Also, I realize that there could be more trust of new developments from non profits and systems such as Kulshan Land Trust than from private landlords, so there are several ways to think about this topic.

Maybe oil companies were not conspiring to hide climate change data in the past, but the Republican Party is conspiring to hide it today.

As people debate the past as to whether there was a conspiracy of fossil fuel companies to deny evidence of climate change, the bigger issue is today. Large segments of the Republican Party are saying "climate change is a hoax."

It's debatable if there was conspiracy, or just human nature's natural avoidance of inconvenience that drove the past, but today, the denial on the part of many Republicans is much more obvious.

Some folks will say, and have said in the past, that we should not rely on government incentives toward green energy, but instead rely more on personal choice to work. That does make some sense, but it seems like recently there is more blatant disregard for doing anything about climate change among Republicans.

I miss the days when people said that we should not panic about climate change, but we still need to address it by relying more on market forces and technological innovation.

Today, the rhetoric is more that climate change is a hoax. This is a harsher stance than even conservatives took in the past, for instance during George W. Bush's administration.

Populism more in denial than corporatism.

Problems with winner take all politics when the vote is so close.

If the popular vote margin wasn't so close nationwide, tactics to thwart the vote, such as gerrymandering would be less effective. Another problem in politics is zero sum thinking. When it becomes "winner take all" there is no compromise. One side or the other will take total power even when the vote is split more even.

With little consensus for an alternative way forward, Trumpism aggressively fills the vacuum.

While Trump's popularity is declining in the polls, the Democrats don't poll that well either. I still think if more Democrats get elected, it could strengthen checks and balances protecting us from sliding into one party rule.

As for ideal policies, there seems to be little consensus among the American people about a way forward.

I have my own agenda, of course. My own agenda calls for less consumptive, automobile dependent lifestyles and the city planning needed to facilitate that. My agenda also doesn't really blame anyone for our situation. Our situation is caused by the people, in mass and our culture. I don't think we can blame the rich, government or any one scapegoat. Still all the "they(s)" are partially to blame.

My own agenda calls for slowing down the rat race, but not going back to the past. I still embrace most technological advance and even new construction. I think our modern society is pretty good, but we just need to slow our personal treadmills down a bit while not necessarily fighting the changes that our accumulative treadmills bring to society.

The rat race is pushing change even if we slow our demands down a bit. We can slow down to possibly make life less stressful, but we still need to accept change.

Problem is, there seems to be little consensus on whatever big direction this country should go.

Democrats usually come closer to my ideas, but my ideas are somewhat unique and not mainstream. There may be no actual "mainstream" since people are all over the map in terms of what they want. The Democrats at least help to prevent us from sliding into one party, one person rule.

Comparing Bellingham's Magnolia Street bike lane to Holly Street bike lane. Magnolia might be better, but Holly faces different circumstances.

Simple bike lane along Magnolia Street. Maybe Bellingham should have made the new Holly Street bike lane simply like this?

I'm okay with the new Holly lane, but it does seem to be generating lots of criticism on social media.

Holly is a different kind of street than Magnolia. It carries more traffic. Due to more retailing along Holly, there is quite a bit of activity, along the street, from both parked cars pulling in and out as well as pedestrians darting about.

I'm no traffic engineer, but I think they are trying to slow down both car and bicycle traffic on Holly for safety.

Holly is the type of street that an organization called "Strong Towns" calls a "strode." A strode is the cross between street and road.

Strong Towns defines street as one for slow speeds with lots of activity along it, such as parking, retailing, walking and so forth. A road has more limited access and is designed for faster traffic. Holly is, in a way, the worst of both. It's a major crosstown route for cars, but it's also a congested retail street. This makes it a difficult situation.

Maybe just the simple Magnolia style bike lane is good enough, but who knows. It's a predicament.

I can imagine some folks just frustratingly saying (like the stereotype of Trump supporters) to just go back to all lanes for cars to funnel more traffic through. People might see trying to change this as just a waste of money.

Of course much of making our world greener could be viewed as just spending more money. If it prevents accident, however, it saves money.

Both Democrats and Republicans worry about creeping authoritarianism in USA for different reasons.

The CBS, Paramount, Skydance deal may be just another example of our slide toward a one person, one party rule. Everything based on what Trump wants.

Hopefully the midterms can bring Democrats into control of at least one federal institution; such as a house of Congress.

Many Republicans have also thought we were sliding toward more authoritarian society as well. They cite increasing regulation over the past few decades. More regulations have to do with increasing population density; for instance one can't burn trash in a backyard burning barrel in most communities. The nearby neighbors are more likely to complain.

There are a lot more environmental regulations than before. Here in Whatcom County, a big bone of contention is something called the "Water Adjudication." I hear farmers and other property owners complain about that on a talk show. It's the state is trying update water allocations in the county by taking an inventory for trying to figure out fair distribution of limited water among various interests. There are the interests of local tribes, the salmon, agriculture, industrial and residential use.

In the past, resources seemed unlimited when populations were smaller and technology was less powerful. There was less worry about salmon, for instance. The interests of the tribes were more ignored in decades past.

Changing ideas about things like gender and sexuality doesn't set well with many Republicans as well.

The world and culture is changing which creates changing of rules and norms to reflect different circumstances. Some folks do see this as also a side into more authoritarian society.

There are more rules against burning trash in a backyard burning barrel.

I still think, if people are smart enough, we can navigate the changes that are happening due to technology, climate change and so forth, while preserving our system of representative democracy.

Things we still need are patience, the ability to compromise and respect for diversity in people and points of view.

Money, itself, isn't as real as the goods, services and assets that it buys. Money is just a number system.

As the national debt keeps going up, people worry that we may run out of money. In reality, we can just print more money, it's not a real commodity that runs out. It's not as real as the goods and services that it buys. It's the actual goods and services that we may not have enough of.

The problem with printing money is that doesn't create the goods and services, it just creates the money itself. Too much money causes inflation in the price of things since it means more dollars chasing the same number of goods and services.

The money, itself, isn't as real as the things it buys. Money is basically just an accounting tool. It's a way to regulate the economy. The actual flow of goods and services is what makes up the true economy.

Printing money doesn't create goods and services, but it can grease the wheels of the economy clearing up bottlenecks for facilitating the production and distribution of goods and services.

On the other hand, too much money can overprice things and plug up the real economy. Balance is what is needed for a finely tuned economy. There needs to be just enough money for things to run smoothly and not too much money to upset the balance.

The money, itself, is not a real commodity, it's just a tool for doing the math and keeping the economy humming.

A good question to ask is this. "Is our economy serving our best needs?" Money is just a tool of mathematics, it's not a god or even a real resource in itself.

Conspiracy and blame versus people taking responsibility for their own influence on the world around them.

I tend to think, for the most part, that ordinary people and culture are the cause of most of our problems; for instance car addiction leading to climate change, versus conspiracy of oil companies.

I know that it's both conspiracy and mass behavior of people that lead to our problems, but I tend to emphasize the people aspect.

Other folks find conspiracy, whether it's conservatives blaming everything on Biden or liberals blaming corporations.

During my high school years, the Watergate Scandal was unfolding. Before that, scandals were less in the news. Yes, people did blame government and business for things and there were conspiracy theories; such as the speculation about the Kennedy assassination.

Since Watergate, it seems like conspiracy and finger pointing has shifted into high gear. It seems like everything is a conspiracy these days. Institutions have less respect.

When I was growing up, it seemed like people had more respect for institutions and folks considered experts in our society. Scientists were more respected; for instance.

Now we hear conservatives speak of scientists, supposedly, being bought off by wealthy promoters of the climate change myth. Liberals talk of climate change deniers financed by the fossil fuel industry.

Trump has been a big fan of conspiracy talk, blaming things on Biden, Harvard elitists, Obama, George Soros and so forth.

These days, I do find it interesting that so many of Trump's MAGA supporters are now disappointed in the Trump Administration's attempts to quiet talk about the Jeffry Epstein case.

During Watergate, I remember, as the Watergate hearings were televised, that one of Nixon's aids testified before the Senate committee that the laws, which broken, were no big deal. He compared them to traffic violations.

I remember thinking, at the time, that reckless driving can lead to death, so, on a small scale, mere traffic rules can be important.

When someone is in government, the consequences of bad action is amplified to even more significance; for instance possibly killing thousands in a war, versus just a handful of people. I came up with the phrase, "power amplifies."

While blame can be laid on institutions and those in high places of power, I also think that the people, ourselves, the people in mass are also to blame for the problems.

Conspiracy theorists falling on their own swords.

Much of Trump's base is now unhappy that the administration is not revealing more stuff about the Epstein case.

This could be a case of folks who talk a lot about scandals falling on their own swords. Trump talked about many scandals, such as in Hunter Biden's laptop. Now that something might point toward him and many others in high places, his administration is trying to say, no more information here. Many of his followers aren't buying it.

I remember the days of Watergate, a scandal that broke new ground at a time when there was less talk about scandals. In more recent times, it seems like there's scandal everywhere, as in innocence lost. Now days, there is talk of scandal everywhere. During Watergate, there was the 18.5 minute gap in the Nixon tapes.

Lower interest rates might just push up existing asset prices pushing inflation. This might be why the Fed is cautious.

If Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell were to push for lower interest rates, it would likely push up the values of assets; such as stocks and real estate. This could inflate costs; such as housing costs. That is one reason why he is resisting pressure from Trump.

Another thing I heard, on a talk show, is that lower interest rates, for US bonds, would make them less popular, making it harder for the government to finance debt by selling bonds. It might have to resort to creating new money, also inflationary. The Bond Market can be a check on Trump.

Time to mention my idea of having two interest rates; a lower one for creating new wealth, such as for construction loans and a higher one for buying up already existing assets.

Democrats don't need to all stand behind one standard bearer; especially for the midterms.

There's debate as to whether the Democrats should lean left or toward the center in politics. I think, especially for the midterm election, they could do both depending on the region. Congressional and local races can play to the constituents of various diverse places. There doesn't have to be one standard bearer for the entire party.

This gets a bit more tricky for presidential elections, but still, the party of the big tent ought to be able to function with civility, given much diversity of opinion within.

Keeping the big tent.

I would guess that the majority of Americans are worried about our possible slide toward more authoritarian; one party, one person government. Still, the Democratic Party alternative doesn't do well in the polls.

I hope Democrats can retake seats in Congress if, for nothing else, to preserve our system of checks and balances.

I still think deep cultural changes are needed before we can more effectively address problems; such as climate change and income inequality. The world as a whole, including USA, needs less population growth and less consumption. Things like over dependency on private automobiles are an example of our problems at the grass roots levels.

People in large urban areas, where space is more limited, are already living in somewhat of a different culture. A culture of more public transit and lower footprint housing, for instance. Urban areas tend to elect politicians that lean farther to the left, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York City. There is worry that this brand of politics will not play well for elections across most of America where life is less urban.

More moderate Democrats still due better in polls across most of America, though some folks might disagree with me. Bernie Sanders has done fairly well in nationwide polling, I guess.

One solution to this problem is to have more autonomy for cities. The politics and culture of dense urban areas is different than that of rural areas. We are a large and very diverse nation so one size fits all solutions can't work across the entire nation. Cities often do tax themselves more to provide things like transit while the need for that is less evident in rural areas.

Still, we do need to figure out how to address things like climate change and inequality in diverse ways suited for each region. Technology is still a big part of the answer, but cultural and lifestyle changes are needed as well. These changes will be different, and in some cases only incremental, based on the differing needs of various places. We live in very diverse environments ranging from New York City to rural Wyoming.

Healthcare industry grows as populations age and more folks can access coverage. This could be in jeopardy however.

Healthcare spending has increased in the US and around much of the world. Aging populations, especially in wealthier nations, are part of the equation. Another big factor, in the US, is an increase in the percentage of population covered by insurance. According an article I saw in New York Times, 14% of US population had no health insurance in 2000. By 2023 that number had dropped to 8%; a benevolent trend.

Insurance coverage has increased mostly due to Medicaid expansion in most states due to Obamacare. The Obamacare exchanges and some other changes has increased coverage as well. Some of this improvement may be in jeopardy due to the budget.

Past growth of healthcare industry is reshaping the US economy. Below graphic I excerpted from.

What are the alternatives? Healthier lifestyles are part of the equation, but not all of the equation. The inevitable reality of death is also part of the equation. It may seem crude to say this, but here is a sound byte I recently thought of.

"Assisted dying is cheaper than assisted living."

Still, in spite of all this, my wish for people, including myself, is.

"May we have many more years."

Democrats and the public watches as Republicans struggle with the budget.

As I write this, who knows the fate of that Republican budget bill in the US House of Representatives?

Republicans tend to not listen to Democrats, but there is division within the house of Republicanism about this bill. Reservations ranging from it's Medicaid cuts to it's projected deficit increases related to the tax cut provisions.

Maybe Republicans, themselves, will delay giving Trump his victory of having the bill on his desk by the Fourth of July. The process may slow down so they can continue to refine the bill and hammer out compromises.

We'll see. We, the public and also the Democrats, watch from mostly being relegated to the sidelines.

In the quest for a more affordable city, does Zohran Mamdani have a needed perspective?

Since I have opinions about so many things, I can try venturing into New York City politics as well. Zohran Mamdani is making news a winner of the city's democratic primary. A fresh new face and energy. I look forward to learning more.

One reservation is some old ideas, I think he has for things like rent control. One problem is that rent control might just be pushing around the problem of expensive housing due to lack of supply. Some will say that "build, build, build" works better, but I see the need for deep thinking versus some of these simplistic discussions.

Rent control may mean less housing construction due to economics.

Here is yet another factor. Maybe the central city is already pretty dense so building a lot more could harm it's breathing room, however. How about densifying the suburbs? I tend to think that there may be a comfort limit to how dense San Francisco, itself can get. I know, I'm now talking about a different city. The city does work due to transit and so forth. To make things more affordable why can't we build out the suburbs more and connect things with less automobile based transit beyond just the central cities themselves? What I am advocating is happening, to some extent, but I think we need political slogans that look at the big picture. I know it may be hard to put the big picture into a slogan.

Another thing to think about. Cities tend to be more liberal than the countryside. A political divide. One way to address that is to provide more autonomy to cities as they tend to think different than more rural areas. Saying that, I realize, however that I am suggesting making the suburbs more like the cities. The suburbs at least.

Sometimes weapons used for violence do have to be destroyed.

I'm pretty much okay with the destruction of Iran's nuclear sites, if that is what has actually happened. That's also if Iran was actually planning to develop atomic weapons. International cooperation with inspectors on the ground in Iran would be better, however, if that was possible.

It takes more than just tax cuts to grow an economy.

Tax cuts are often advocated by people thinking they will grow the economy. In most cases that doesn't work as it takes more to grow an economy than just tax cuts.

Deregulation might do more, but again it takes more than just that. Economies grow from many things like abundant natural resources, innovation, education, infrastructure improvements and so forth. In some cases, reducing regulation harms the environment thus hurting the economy; for instance tourism.

Maybe repealing the 2017 tax cuts would be somewhat of a shock, but Republicans should not add more tax cuts on top of the already low taxes that are skewed mostly to the wealthy. Our system seems teetering on bankruptcy more than ever.

Greed is a big problem. We can never grow the economy enough to be totally satisfying. We need to strive for a sustainable economy instead.

As US national governance slides more toward one person rule, people at local levels seem to be waking up more.

So far, my own life has been pretty good and hasn't changed that much in spite of growing gloom about the state of our national government. At the local level, here in Bellingham and hopefully across USA, alternative cultures still thrive including more LGBTQ people coming out of the closet than ever.

At the same time, national government is sliding more to one person rule without checks and balances. It seems to be sliding toward dictatorship; today's Supreme Court ruling reducing the ability of district courts to overturn unconstitutional executive orders as one more step to absolute presidential rule.

As time goes on, I think a growing majority of the American people oppose one party, one president rule. Still, we seem to now be sliding into some form of dictatorship at the national level. I hope the people can still save us from that fate.

In the past, I've tended to blame the people for the shape of our politics. The people as voters, or lack of voting and the people as consumers buying into mainstream culture have played a role in shaping things up till now. Power of corporations and government has also been part of the equation, but more recently we have crossed a line in which I think the people are not to blame as much as before. The national system is no longer for the people, for the most part.

As Democracy fades at the national level, the people seem to be waking up across the country and can still bring a better outcome. Culture does seem to be awakening in many ways including more enthusiasm for LGBTQ community, at local levels, as one example.

The so called right to life politicians are pulling the plug on USAID thus increasing the death rate.

The so called right to life politicians are pulling the plug on USAID thus increasing the death rate.

Cutting off foreign aid could be seen as a crude way to reduce world population.

It's possibly from the law of unintended consequences. I think much of the anti immigration push, plus the cutbacks in foreign aid are like a subconscious reaction to a crowded planet.

Support for birth control causes far less misery.

Elon Musk foolishly supported and now gets burned by the MAGA cult.

Much of the MAGA world is having to eat it's own vicious medicine. I'm not surprised that there would be a falling out between Elon Musk and Trump.

Fire brand Steve Bannon, a media personality and former Trump aid, has also entered the fight. Without our government's checks and balances, Trump could, conceivably, seize, Musk's Space X company on national security grounds; as Bannon suggests. It's likely the courts would try to stop this, however; remember Trump's bullying of Harvard.

Space X has been a very important defense and space contractor. It's been the only reliable US provider for human space flight. Without it, astronauts would have no way to get back and forth from the International Space Station; except for riding on Russia's Soyuz capsules.

The US and Russia are no longer on friendly terms either, but scientists, on the Space Station, can still work together. If scientists can work together, why can't anyone else?

Religious fanatics, politicians, media stars and much of the public engages in nasty feuds. The volume of these feuds has been in high gear as folks like Trump, Musk and Bannon keep blathering.

I remember having quite a bit of respect for Musk with his reusable rockets, but more recently, it seems like he has bought the MAGA bug and gone off the rails; his Space X company still functioning thanks to calmer minded technical staff.

Maybe, if real scientists had more say in world affairs, we would be in much better shape.

Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) give some Republicans worry about their image. To be honest, the choices are difficult.

Warning: This mentions death.

As Republicans struggle with lowering the federal deficit, I think the biggest slice of the spending pie is Medicare, which I rely on. So far, it's off the cutting table, but Medicaid is another large pillar of life that could be on the table.

Like political "hot rails" politicians mess who these items risk committing "political suicide." These comments from Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) give some Republicans worry about their image. To be honest, the choices are difficult.

Other big budget items include things like interest on the debt, military, veteran benefits and Homeland Security. Beyond that it's many small slices of the pie that keep the country going; such as the Weather Service.

Link to article on Yahoo News.