I'm relived that the verdict is guilty in this case.

I'm relieved that the Chauvin verdict is guilty. Partially because of the prospect of civil unrest if the verdict wasn't guilty. As for the actual crime, I wasn't there to judge the facts, but seems like, from what I can gather in this specific case, guilty is the proper verdict.

My ideal person is more than one person

Someone ask in a group on Facebook about what your version of an ideal partner would be. My answer was:

My ideal man is more than one man. I find different things in different people. A friendly chat with a young slim guy in a gym shower can feed my fantasies. Other people can be like old friends with a lot of shared times and history. Different people share different interests. I like having a wide variety of people available in community. At the same time, I do like living by myself. Not in isolation, but in close proximity to others who like to participate in various public things. Walking groups, dinner gatherings, political causes, dancing and being on Facebook.

To some extent, society as a whole criminalizes poverty. Police are more a scapegoat.

Police reform isn't necessarily a bad idea, but I do tend to think a lot of the anger against police is misplaced anger against things like gentrification, income inequality, poverty and so forth.

Also I notice (my own hunch at least) some parts of life are less funky, in a way, than in years past. Cities are trying to "clean up the city." When I was a child, we wandered around town with less worry and supervision. Bad things happened, but there was less worry and awareness of it.

Now society demands a higher level of safety. Seatbelts, for instance. Drunk driving laws more enforced. Often for good reason, but not everyone fits those molds easily.

The police are like at the knife edge of a blade cutting through. They get the blame as they are often the bringers of the bad news in efforts to keep the town more tidy.

One of the problems that we have is that poverty is criminalized. There are laws against sleeping in an RV on city streets, for instance.

Some of these laws are now not being enforced, which is good. Looking back, the laws were problematic. Now, with the virus and the Boise court ruling on homelessness, things may be changing for the better.

We could accept RVs, tiny homes and even, in some cases tents, as a legitimate form of low income housing by admitting to the fact that other housing is in short supply.

We could work with the situation as it is to improve things with various technologies. The smartphone is already used as contact. People can have PO boxes. Composting toilets can help in RVs, there can be trash pickup. Some areas can have reasonable fees for things like trash pickup and water.

Admit that we are a bit like a third world country. Try and make the best of the reality of these situations, rather than criminalizing then.

The police do make some mistakes, but they get too much blame for society's problems.

I'll admit I may be writing from a position of white privilege, but I do feel that so much media focus on deadly mistakes made by police usually leaves out some deeper issues. These mistakes are bound to happen in tense situations.

Conservatives will say that the violent crime rate is higher in black neighborhoods. Maybe better to say in poor neighborhoods. Discussing underlying causes of these problems is valuable.

I only have my own opinions, but I think about things like restrictive "single family" zoning and it's contribution to the high cost of housing.

Segregation is often an unintended consequence of things, in society, that are designed to protect people's wealth and peace of mind. In the past, there was a history of more overt racism behind lots of urban planning decisions, but now many traditions, rooted in the past, continue without the overt stated racism.

I've seen some articles about this. The racial roots of some zoning rules that have been cleansed of their original, 1950s, language, but still are enforce.

I would think that over dependence on the automobile contributes to problems. The way freeways have carved up cities.

There is the problem of traffic stops in the first place. A fear of what's lurking inside vehicles. Who's behind the tinted glass? Do they have a gun? Were they reckless drivers? Are they on drugs? Automobiles, in the hands of the general public, can be very dangerous. I think about the problem of "stranger danger." How wary ordinary people are of folks they don't know. A lot of people fear using public transit for that reason, but is public transit really as dangerous, or unpleasant, as folks perceive?

I think maybe we should all be more accepting of strangers.

There is a lot of suspicion, out there, created by a climate of fear. Media can enhance fear as it often highlights the one in a million type fluke events and crimes when the overall statistics might say that common activities; like driving a car, are more dangerous. More dangerous than, say riding a bus with unknown passengers.

Scared to ride the bus? Picture of haunted Whatcom Transit bus, Halloween 2010.

When people get to know each other, fear usually diminishes. Problem is that in most situations, there isn't time to develop a rapport with people we encounter.

A group of menacing looking teenagers might be fine, if one gets to know them more. Even just some brief conversation. Most situations don't allow that, however. People will walk across the street instead. I'll admit I'd walk across the street also.

I'm a bit shy on first contact with people, but, if the opportunity is there, I am pretty open to meeting new people. I don't worry too much about privacy or being out there in public. Still, I avoid things out of fear as well.

Some folks are very insular and stay in their small world of friends. That's a common part of human nature. Other folks are more open to mingling with the public, with the diversity that the public mix brings.

Maybe we do need to be more tolerant and not allow as many things to annoy us. Sometimes, though, people can be annoying and even outright dangerous. There are times when one has to call a spade a spade. I would think that the police aren't usually going out there arresting people without cause.

The police have to deal with things all the time. People and situations that other folks, including myself, tend to avoid. Part of the problem is the way our society tends to isolate people from one another. It's kind of a natural cliquishness. I think a lot of the problems, related to the police, are more the symptoms of human tendencies. Things that would cause everyone to have to rethink their own tendencies.

As for stranger danger, here is a funny thought I often have walking on the sidewalk. When I see some young people heading my direction on skateboards, my first thought is often, "they are cute." My second thought is to jump out of the way.

Fortunately, I am still quite agile so jumping out of the way works. Also, even if I didn't jump, they can almost always swerve around me anyway. They are kind of fun to watch.

My point being to try and have a different mindset than fear, or anger is often a good strategy.

If international competitiveness of corporations is compromised paying whole bill for infrastructure, maybe a gas tax and or carbon tax could help.

Looks like all Democrats may not support Biden's raising of corporate taxes / infrastructure bill. With Republicans probably against it, just one no vote from a Democrat would kill the bill.

I got to thinking, maybe they should spread the tax over a wider base of revenue sources. Raise corporate tax slightly less, but add a gas tax. Also a tax on high income individuals. Small taxes in all these areas.

Basically a gas tax is a carbon tax. Yes, a true carbon tax covers all carbon fuels, but gasoline is one of the worst. We already have a gas tax. The federal gas tax hasn't been raised in years so it could go up a bit. A new tax, such as a carbon tax, might be harder to pass.

Just raise the gas tax a few pennies. 2 or 3 cents a gallon? These kind of taxes can be regressive so proposed carbon taxes have included complex systems for rebating money to low income people. Often the proposals fail due, in part, to complexity of measures to try and mitigate the impact on low income and essential workers.

Maybe just a small tax is the answer. Keep it simple.

Just a few pennies wouldn't stop climate change, but it's better than nothing. Keeping it low is a simple way to address the regressive nature of such a tax.

Over time, it could be raised. Anti tax people don't like the idea of a tax raising over time. They see it as the camel putting his nose under the tent and then ratcheting it up.

If global warming is as serious as some scientists think, a tax that ratchets up might be the least of our problems.

One problem with any tax change is how hard it is to get anything through the Senate. If we can get enough Senators on board and use the reconciliation tool against filibuster, we might be able to raise modest taxes. If this were the case, the taxes wouldn't have to be the be all and end all solution.

Easier passage through the Senate would allow things to be adjusted on an ongoing basis. This could include taxes as well as infrastructure improvements and strategies for dealing with climate change. It wouldn't have to be the one do or die one big time solution.

We really need to take care of these things as we go along.

As for a tax on wealthy individuals, that could direct a corporation's capital to better uses. Corporations sometimes use much of their money to pad the incomes of their top executives / stockholders. Other times, they invest it in things, like new buildings or scientific research, to improve their products and services.

If the corporation is using it's money to improve it's product and service, that's not necessarily bad, but if the money is mostly going to personal income of the folks on top, it should be more taxed.

Maybe it's easier to sort that out as a personal income / wealth, or even / inheritance tax than as a business / corporate income tax.

Outer space is a different kind of a frontier than the American West. It's more about learning than expansionism in the foreseeable future.

YouTube has a lot of videos from the History Channel.

Last night, I watched part of one about the westward expansion of America. Ever since I can remember, I've thought that one of America's biggest problems is loss of the frontier. By mid 20th Century, our expansionist culture had pretty well run up against environmental constraints.

Outer space is a different kind of a frontier. It's more of a technical and learning frontier. Not one where millions of will head out west in covered wagons. It's not the same as the Oregon Trail or the California Gold Rush.

It's more of a spectator experience for average people, except for the relatively few scientists on teams, such as the folks working with the Mars Rovers. For the rest of us, it can be a great learning experience and the technology is useful, back here on earth.

Last night, I turned off the frontier show about halfway through fearing it would give me nightmares. The brutality of life on the frontier was depicted graphically. A woman screaming while giving birth in a wagon train. A man in pain as they were sewing up wounds from a grizzly bear attack. He did survive, but about then I turned it off fearing the night ahead.

Interesting that the video did drop in a segment with Donald Trump talking about the American spirit of perseverance. While Trump didn't have the physically hard life of the frontier, there is something about his style that has resonated with that spirit.

Today we continue needing to redefine culture somehow. We've made it to the west coast long ago.

Single, child free lives of voluntary simplicity. An overlooked strategy to combat global warming.

Biking along Old Samish Highway.

For the past few decades, possibly over half of the American people have been struggling economically. Just renting an apartment, buying one's first home and raising a family has become more difficult due to income inequality.

I haven't been struggling as much, mostly because I have not wanted to raise a family. Have not sought many of the things other people have aspired to.

One would think lives, like mine, could be more of a role model for living in today's economy, but, to a large extent, they have seemed to be ignored.

The percent of American people who remain single has increased, but I seldom see this described as a solution to our economic problems. Less population growth, less consumption, simpler living, but it isn't discussed that way.

Given environmental constraints, it could lead to a better world for everyone; including for those who still wish to raise a family and create future generations.

There is no point in future generations, if there is no future.

I still think the future could be bright, however.

On thinking, I just reminded myself why simple, childfree lifestyles aren't a big part of national goals. We need a consuming public to keep the economy flourishing. Consumer spending drives much of today's economy.

These days, we are now trying to prop up consumer spending with printed money, tax rebates and so forth.

Even with what I think of as a smaller footprint than most people, I have had a good quality of life. Technological advances, such as the smartphone, have enrichened lives even without everyone having to be a millionaire themselves.

On the other hand just owning a home and raising a family, in a place like Seattle Metro Area, just about requires being a millionaire these days.

Things like the bicycle, rather than driving a car, have brought a different kind of experience for me than most people have. Maybe less mobility; like zipping off to Seattle for the weekend, but it's helped my health. It's also allowed me to appreciate things that other people just rush by; like Old Samish Road.

In my life, I have been more cautious than most of other people. I've held onto the same jobs, rather than trying to advance. Some people have done well by advancing in their careers, but I know a lot of people who have fallen back as they've tried to advance. They've gotten a new job and then been in over their heads, or they have had a bad boss at the new job and gotten fired. In some cases, they have become homeless.

I've played it very safe, but I haven't advanced career wise. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but few people seem to offer "non advancement" as vocational advise. Few people seem to aspire to the kind of life I live.

It's true that if everyone was like me, there wouldn't be the Facebooks and the smartphones, but everyone isn't alike anyway. I enjoy using the Facebooks and smartphones, but everyone doesn't have to be a star in Silicon Valley to have those things in our world. It only takes a small percent of the population to be like Thomas Edison. He had a creative mind and he was also a very shrewd businessperson.

I remember my second grade teacher saying, "if everyone daydreamed like me, we would still be in the dark ages." I guess a good answer would be, "if no one daydreamed, we would still be in the dark ages."

It takes more than one kind of person to make up the world.

Seems like my lifestyle has worked, but it's been kind of a well kept secret as far as mainstream culture is concerned.

I wonder if Senator Manchion has an alternative to the corporate tax hike to pass the infrastructure bill?

To pass an infrastructure bill, Democrats may need to get all the Democrats in the Senate to vote yes using reconciliation with Kamela Harris's tie breaking vote.

Even just 1 Democrat, like Senator Manchion, who has reservations about the corporate tax hike, could kill the bill. I wonder if Manchion has any alternative proposal?

The corporate tax hike is still milder than what corporations were paying before the Trump tax cut. It wouldn't go all the way back up to what that tax rate was before; just part way back up.

America's economy did survive even that higher corporate tax hike. Jeff Bezos, of Amazon, has said he supports the corporate tax hike. Apparently it wouldn't be the death nail to Amazon.

Since the Trump corporate tax cut, there hasn't been a big improvement in manufacturing moving back to USA as far as I can gather. Our trade deficit is still pretty high.

There is a gradual move of manufacturing back to USA, not as much related to taxes, but to technology. 3D printing is relocalizing a lot of manufacturing, from what I hear.

Personally, I still suggest an individual tax hike as an alternative to taxing corporations which just pass the cost along to individuals anyway, but we can survive a mild corporation tax that isn't even as high as before.

We do need to do something.

Taxing corporations might be a way to make it look like your not taxing anyone

People want good infrastructure, but not the taxes to pay for it.

Senator Manchin has a concern that our corporate tax rate needs to remain competitive with other industrialized countries, such as Canada and European nations, so our products remain competitive on world markets.

I'd add that most of those countries have low corporate tax rates, but higher individual tax rates. We can't have it all. If corporate tax rates stay low, I think individual tax rates will need to go up.

Corporations usually pass the cost of their taxes along to consumers so high corporate tax rates could make our products more expensive on world markets. At the same time, we do need good infrastructure so someone does need to pay.

Couldn't we do as I think other countries do and raise the taxes on wealthy individuals? In the end, it's people who get the money. A corporation is mostly just a vehicle that passes money to individuals eventually.

It's like we are a bunch of spoiled kids who want to always pass the taxes on to someone else. A corporation is a target as it's not a person (in spite of laws making it an artificial person). In the end, the corporation just passes everything along and it's people anyway. Why not just tax the people; especially the rich and probably also upper middle class?

It's kind of like we are trying to hide from this reality all the time. If we want good infrastructure, it does need to be paid for. We can print the money, of course. That might actually work; for a while at least.

People seem to always want to "have their cakes and eat them to;" as the old phrase goes.

Maybe there was less divorce in the past when expectations were lower and people just persevered through marriage?

I know that there are people who have been happily in a relationship for many years, but it seems like most romantic relationships are full of turmoil and / or short lived.

It doesn't seem worth it to me.

My own parents seemed to get along well. Among my brothers and sisters, there are two who have been (I assume happily) married for life. The rest of the 5 of us have remained single. We all still get along okay. I grew up in a 1960s household. I'm the youngest of 5 kids born between 1938 and 1954.

During my childhood I remember, from conversations, having the impression that we were a dysfunctional family. After growing up and seeing the conflicts and problems in other people's upbringing, it seems like every family is dysfunctional. Ours wasn't too bad compared to the others.

I remember that there seemed to always be a simmering bit of conflict in the family. This was thought of as being dysfunctional as it was never resolved. Most of the time, things were good, but there were conflicts that would come up and there would usually not be much resolution.

As I think about things, it seems like this is almost unavoidable. Life is never totally ideal and people just persevered. Persevering, like that, was probably more common decades ago.

These days, it seems like there are higher expectations that usually end up being unfulfilled anyway. Our tolerance for just persevering is diminished.

At the same time, it seems like that tolerance is one of the things that kept families together, back then and it created the space for the many good things that we (my family) had and still have.

Maybe the big problem is not the water. Why do voters have to wait so long in line?

About the law in Georgia banning even distribution of water to voter's waiting in line, the big problem is, I guess, the line itself. Something is wrong when people have to wait hours in line to vote.

Here is Washington State, we have mail in ballots. That's the best way to go, in my opinion. Even when we had polling places, I never remember having to wait more than 20 minutes at most.

Maybe there have been budget cuts in states where they still have to hire workers for polling places?

My mom used to work in a polling place and there was a law that prevented people from discussing, or having campaign material in the polling place. Maybe there is worry that political talk will seep in with the water? Talk while the water is being handed over?

I can sort of see this worry in the polling place, but how far out the door and down the street does it apply?

The big problem is, there shouldn't have to be a line out the door and down the street.

Remember Northern Tier Pipeline? If it had been built, maybe now it would be working in reverse?

Some people say it's stupid to oppose an oil pipeline since an alternative is to send the oil by train or truck. Pipelines are said to be much safer.

I think the problem is overall consumption of oil. Not that the pipeline is worse than rail or truck.

Seems like a lot of issues are shaped by legal maneuvering. When a pipeline goes through environmental review process, the laws talk about leaks. Not as much the big picture of a pipeline's role in enabling oil consumption. A pipeline can bring down the cost of oil and gasoline which really, isn't a good thing. Yes, people are still dependent on inexpensive oil.

For a trip down Memory Lane, old time Washingtonians will remember the "Northern Tier Pipeline." It was a proposal to build a pipeline across the northern tier of states to ship oil from Alaska to consumers back east. Back toward Chicago and points beyond.

Oil from Alaska has been coming to our local refineries since construction of the Alaska Pipeline back in the 1970s (80s?). It comes by pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to a port in Valdez, Alaska. Then by tanker ships to Northwest Washington refineries, here in Whatcom and Skagit Counties.

Northern Tier was to send some of that oil back east to more markets.

Well, it looks like we used up much of the Prudhoe Bay Oil anyway. Oil is now coming west, instead of east. Some of it is now coming from North Dakota to Washington State by train.

If Northern Tier had been built, maybe it would be working in reverse? The oil flowing west, instead of east? The pipeline wasn't built so it's going by rail.

Alaskan oil is starting to run out, except for maybe more in the ground at Anwar Wilderness Preserve.

Since the 1990s, higher prices and new technology have ramped up oil production in North Dakota. Oil from the Bakken Shale. Some of our oil is now coming from the east. North Dakota has produced oil before, but the Bakken Shale Fields has significantly ramped up North Dakotan production in the 2000s.

Legalizing recreational marijuana, in Washington State, created a new multi million dollar private sector industry. Meanwhile government is good a providing needed services, such as the public library.

On the radio, I often hear conservatives say that government doesn't create any wealth since it doesn't create a product. This may be an old version of economic thinking where wealth is seen as material things.

These days, a lot of wealth is services and knowledge. Government does provide a lot of needed services such as, for instance, police and fire protection. Other services, like city parks, libraries, schools, roads, airports and so forth are of value. They are usually provided by government.

In quite a few cases, private companies might do a better job providing services than government bureaucracies. Big corporations can be very bureaucratic also, however. Still using private companies as vendors for services is often a good idea. Private companies can often innovate and do a better, more efficient job that the government, but there still is the problem of the marketplace.

A lot of the valuable services that governments provide are not things that people are accustom to paying for. Public libraries, parks, schools police and so forth. It is conceivable that these things could be paid for by the private market, but it would be a rude awakening for many people. Toll roads, for instance.

It would take a while for people in this society to get used to that way of doing things.

Meanwhile we need to value the kinds of services that governments normally provide. Other things that are normally provided by private enterprise can continue.

One example of a product provided by private enterprise, here in the state of Washington, is marijuana. Since Washington State has legalized recreational marijuana, a new multi million dollar, taxable, private industry has been created.

Not that pot is necessarily a bad thing, but it's kind of ironic what works on the private market that steriotypical conservatives think of as about the only force creating value in our society.

My related Article in The Betty Pages.