Okay, maybe Tony Hinchcliffe's jokes, at Trump's Madison Square Garden rally, are just to be taken as humor. Besides the famous "island of garbage" joke, there was also the comment about "Latinos love having babies."
I can joke back and say everyone needs more birth control. I can say, "if more people were gay there might be less people."
Seems like Republicans, at least subconsciously, think there are too many people; as in too many people, from all over the world, who happen to want to come to what Ronald Regan called the "shining city on the hill."
Comedy can be cutting at events called roasts. This comedian has done some roasts.
I remember that Trump refused to even attend the annual roast that is called the "White House Correspondent Dinner." He refused to attend when he was president. What's wrong Mr. Trump?
Obama attended that dinner when he was president. He took the jokes, aimed at him, in stride as in being a good sport about it.
Tuesday, October 29, 2024
Friday, October 18, 2024
Rightwing backlash against efforts to address climate change.
Attempts to maintain status quo in our car dependent, sprawling neighborhoods fuels rightwing pushback against government's attempts to lower the carbon footprint. Increased costs for things like gasoline often do fall harder on low income people.
Being willing to accept change, in our lifestyles and neighborhood designs, could bring realization that using public transit is less expensive than expecting people to own cars.
We do need to make deeper cultural changes than just having governments pass rules to try and meet lower carbon emission goals. I still plan, however, to vote against Initiative 2117 to repeal Washington's Cap and Trade system. Maybe cap and trade wasn't the best design, but it's something to address climate change. Looking at it another way, it does fund lots of things that benefit our state, such as salmon recovery, public transit and road safety improvements.
Yes, I realize that public transit is not available in all areas or convenient enough for some people. I think it is more convenient than most people realize, however.
Transition to greener technologies tends to take time. Solar energy's rollout, for instance could end up being slower than the goals set by government mandates.
Laws that ratchet up costs, such as cap and trade's increasing limits on carbon emission credits as the years go by, are likely to keep ratcheting up the cost of fossil fuels. This will likely happen faster than our ability to make the changes we need so it's not surprising that there is pushback; from lower income people especially.
Still, it does look like the polls are in favor of keeping the cap and trade, for now, in Washington State; a fairly liberal state. Conservatism, partially driven by the wish to hang onto "status quo economic life" seems more pronounced in other parts of USA. The red states, for instance.
In the long run, we do need to accept change, at a deeper personal and cultural level, than just imposing it by government mandate. Government mandates, that inconvenience people, tend to bring rightwing pushback, however I still do vote for them, usually. They are better than nothing, but they often do get tossed out, given the mood of the nation, at the ballot box.
Being willing to accept change, in our lifestyles and neighborhood designs, could bring realization that using public transit is less expensive than expecting people to own cars.
We do need to make deeper cultural changes than just having governments pass rules to try and meet lower carbon emission goals. I still plan, however, to vote against Initiative 2117 to repeal Washington's Cap and Trade system. Maybe cap and trade wasn't the best design, but it's something to address climate change. Looking at it another way, it does fund lots of things that benefit our state, such as salmon recovery, public transit and road safety improvements.
Yes, I realize that public transit is not available in all areas or convenient enough for some people. I think it is more convenient than most people realize, however.
Laws that ratchet up costs, such as cap and trade's increasing limits on carbon emission credits as the years go by, are likely to keep ratcheting up the cost of fossil fuels. This will likely happen faster than our ability to make the changes we need so it's not surprising that there is pushback; from lower income people especially.
Still, it does look like the polls are in favor of keeping the cap and trade, for now, in Washington State; a fairly liberal state. Conservatism, partially driven by the wish to hang onto "status quo economic life" seems more pronounced in other parts of USA. The red states, for instance.
In the long run, we do need to accept change, at a deeper personal and cultural level, than just imposing it by government mandate. Government mandates, that inconvenience people, tend to bring rightwing pushback, however I still do vote for them, usually. They are better than nothing, but they often do get tossed out, given the mood of the nation, at the ballot box.
Biking memories, fear of dogs and more.
There was an open house at the Archives Building, WWU where some of the memories and posters that I have donated were on display.
I had a chance to talk with several students who took the time for in depth conversation, which I truly enjoy. Many topics were discussed comparing life on campus, today, to back in the 1970s when I was a student.
One person mentioned that her parents hadn't even been born when I was at WWU. She was impressed by how much bicycling I do as she said she finds the thought of even bicycling across campus a bit daunting in spite of her young age.
I got to thinking, after the event, that I found bicycling more daunting when I was her age as well. I was afraid (and still am afraid) of farm dogs. Dogs can be one of the biggest dangers against bicycling, but these days the dogs are more likely to be penned up or on a leash. There are now more laws controlling dog owners.
Back then, I remember dog droppings all over town, but these days, we have stricter pooper scooper laws as well.
My freshman year, in college, I didn't even have a bike. I walked instead. My bike was back at my parents house in Pullman. The following year they brought my bike over to Bellingham in my parents camper van.
I had gone on some long distance rides around Pullman going back to 7th grade, but my fear of farm dogs curtailed much of that. When I first got my bike in Bellingham, I was afraid to ride out of town due to the dogs. My only long trip was out to Larabee State Park.
I did use it in town quite a bit and got to know the layout of Bellingham better. I felt more at home, in Bellingham, after I got my bike over here. My freshman year, I felt more like a resident of Pullman who was just staying in Bellingham temporarily. After that I ended up here, but that's another long story.
My first long ride out into the county was soon after graduation from WWU when a friend named Phil Hoge, who I am still in touch with today, suggested we go out to tour some industries in the county. We toured Recomp, on Slater Road, where local garbage was incinerated and then rode out to Intalco Aluminum Works for a look from the side of the road.
It wasn't till a year or two later, in the early 1980s that I started venturing farther by myself. That was when Washington State changed the law and started allowing bicycles on the wide shoulders of I-5 in rural area. I figured there would be no dogs on I-5. I was amazed how smooth and safe the freeway shoulder felt, back then, compared to many country roads. That was back in the days of 55 mph speed limits and possibly only half as much traffic as today.
Since then, many back roads have been improved for bicycles, better shoulders and so forth plus more leash laws keeping the dogs from chasing bikes on the road.
One person mentioned that her parents hadn't even been born when I was at WWU. She was impressed by how much bicycling I do as she said she finds the thought of even bicycling across campus a bit daunting in spite of her young age.
I got to thinking, after the event, that I found bicycling more daunting when I was her age as well. I was afraid (and still am afraid) of farm dogs. Dogs can be one of the biggest dangers against bicycling, but these days the dogs are more likely to be penned up or on a leash. There are now more laws controlling dog owners.
Back then, I remember dog droppings all over town, but these days, we have stricter pooper scooper laws as well.
My freshman year, in college, I didn't even have a bike. I walked instead. My bike was back at my parents house in Pullman. The following year they brought my bike over to Bellingham in my parents camper van.
I had gone on some long distance rides around Pullman going back to 7th grade, but my fear of farm dogs curtailed much of that. When I first got my bike in Bellingham, I was afraid to ride out of town due to the dogs. My only long trip was out to Larabee State Park.
I did use it in town quite a bit and got to know the layout of Bellingham better. I felt more at home, in Bellingham, after I got my bike over here. My freshman year, I felt more like a resident of Pullman who was just staying in Bellingham temporarily. After that I ended up here, but that's another long story.
My first long ride out into the county was soon after graduation from WWU when a friend named Phil Hoge, who I am still in touch with today, suggested we go out to tour some industries in the county. We toured Recomp, on Slater Road, where local garbage was incinerated and then rode out to Intalco Aluminum Works for a look from the side of the road.
It wasn't till a year or two later, in the early 1980s that I started venturing farther by myself. That was when Washington State changed the law and started allowing bicycles on the wide shoulders of I-5 in rural area. I figured there would be no dogs on I-5. I was amazed how smooth and safe the freeway shoulder felt, back then, compared to many country roads. That was back in the days of 55 mph speed limits and possibly only half as much traffic as today.
Since then, many back roads have been improved for bicycles, better shoulders and so forth plus more leash laws keeping the dogs from chasing bikes on the road.
Sunday, October 13, 2024
Rate of inflation is back down, but bringing prices back to pre inflation levels would be deflation. Do we want that?
Overall inflation is almost back down to the around 2% modest target, but some people are still not satisfied. Prices are still higher now than they were before the last period of inflation started.
I guess we could try and bring prices down to below current levels. That's deflation. Do people really want deflation?
Many economists say that deflation should be avoided as it is usually associated with recession and depression. Is that what people secretly want? Do they want a collapse of the economy? Maybe people have a secret desire for less consumption and materialism. Is there a secret desire for less emphasis on wealth and money?
Falling home values might make housing cheaper, but it would put some folks "upside down" in their home; that is if they owe a mortgage.
If Trump returns to the White House, I think it's likely that the following divisiveness and instability could cause the economy to go into a tailspin. That's why a lot of money does seem to be on the side of Kamala Harris. Apparently Harris does lead in campaign contributions. It's what could be called "blue state money" as blue states do tend to be more successful economically.
I think the innovation of liberal culture tends to be good for prosperity and resilience in modern times given the "information / high tech economy." It's no longer your grandfather's economy. Personally, I still feel that a lifestyle of less consumption is desirable and better for the natural environment and I also feel that we can make personal choices toward less consumption with Harris as president.
With Trump as president, personal choices toward less consumptive lifestyles would still be possible, but the increased instability and hatred toward one another, that a Trump Presidency is likely to stir up, would be undesirable for many reasons. Economic collapse, a likely scenario under Trump, could force people into less consumption, but certain scenarios of being forced into economic turmoil would not be pretty. On the other hand, given more likely social stability and status quo under Harris, we could still make the personal choices toward more responsible lifestyles; such as in evolution versus revolution.
Many economists say that deflation should be avoided as it is usually associated with recession and depression. Is that what people secretly want? Do they want a collapse of the economy? Maybe people have a secret desire for less consumption and materialism. Is there a secret desire for less emphasis on wealth and money?
Falling home values might make housing cheaper, but it would put some folks "upside down" in their home; that is if they owe a mortgage.
If Trump returns to the White House, I think it's likely that the following divisiveness and instability could cause the economy to go into a tailspin. That's why a lot of money does seem to be on the side of Kamala Harris. Apparently Harris does lead in campaign contributions. It's what could be called "blue state money" as blue states do tend to be more successful economically.
I think the innovation of liberal culture tends to be good for prosperity and resilience in modern times given the "information / high tech economy." It's no longer your grandfather's economy. Personally, I still feel that a lifestyle of less consumption is desirable and better for the natural environment and I also feel that we can make personal choices toward less consumption with Harris as president.
With Trump as president, personal choices toward less consumptive lifestyles would still be possible, but the increased instability and hatred toward one another, that a Trump Presidency is likely to stir up, would be undesirable for many reasons. Economic collapse, a likely scenario under Trump, could force people into less consumption, but certain scenarios of being forced into economic turmoil would not be pretty. On the other hand, given more likely social stability and status quo under Harris, we could still make the personal choices toward more responsible lifestyles; such as in evolution versus revolution.
Monday, October 07, 2024
Maybe the vice presidential candidates should be the presidential candidates.
Posted on Facebook October 2 2024.
I listened to part of last night's vice presidential debate. It seemed much more civil than the presidential debate and was about important issues.
Ironically, the presidential debate was more about grandstanding and gotcha points. Harris must have been trying to keep up, a bit, with Trump's grandstanding in the competition for votes.
I'm for Harris / Waltz. It is ironic, however that the vice presidential debate was more useful from a thinking standpoint. Maybe the vice presidential candidates should be the presidential candidates.
Having Trump on the stage kind of sets the tone like the elephant in the room.
Speaking of elephant (Republican Party) Vance seemed fairly civil this time; more like the somewhat more civil Republican Party of George W. Bush. Less talk, from Vance, of single, childless cat ladies and no one brought up immigrants eating people's pets.
I listened to part of last night's vice presidential debate. It seemed much more civil than the presidential debate and was about important issues.
Ironically, the presidential debate was more about grandstanding and gotcha points. Harris must have been trying to keep up, a bit, with Trump's grandstanding in the competition for votes.
I'm for Harris / Waltz. It is ironic, however that the vice presidential debate was more useful from a thinking standpoint. Maybe the vice presidential candidates should be the presidential candidates.
Having Trump on the stage kind of sets the tone like the elephant in the room.
Speaking of elephant (Republican Party) Vance seemed fairly civil this time; more like the somewhat more civil Republican Party of George W. Bush. Less talk, from Vance, of single, childless cat ladies and no one brought up immigrants eating people's pets.
I'm remembering Carter Presidency as Carter soon turns 100.
Posted on Facebook Sept. 29 2024.
Happy Birthday to former President Jimmy Carter who I hear turns 100 on Tuesday October 1.
President during my college years and a bit beyond. 1977-1981.
I remember him for advocating less energy consumption to help us get through the energy crisis, back then. We were running out of easy to drill liquid petroleum. One of his famous statements was how dependent we were on a thin line of oil tankers stretching halfway around the world.
He advocated alternative energy and had solar panels installed at the White House. He also advocated American energy independence with something called the Carter Synfuels Program; basically mining shale and cooking it to squeeze out the last drops of American oil. Coal production and gasification was also seen as a solution as USA had plenty of coal reserves.
Since then, new technology has made getting oil out of shale much easier than thought back then. USA is now basically energy independent, but another problem has cropped up; climate change.
Solar, wind and other alternative technologies have significantly improved since those years bringing the price of alternative energy down.
I would like us to see a return to Carter's type of advocacy for conservation and modification of consumptive lifestyles plus continued advancement of the cleaner technologies.
Carter was also noted as an advocate for international human rights with his UN ambassador, Andrew Young, a big figure in that era of hope.
At some point Andrew did have to leave that post, but I forgot the details.
On gay rights, that era could be thought of as ancient history compared to the recent progress made in USA on that topic.
I remember a ground breaking meeting between top White House staff and a group called the National Gay Taskforce. The president wasn't at that meeting, but it was seen as a big step forward at that time. Gay rights was gaining ground at the grass roots level and that was possibly the first recognition at the White House.
Carter's presidency was buffeted many unfortunate events beyond his control such as the Iranian hostage crisis and the Three Mile Island nuclear power incident.
Toward the end of his presidency, there was some feeling that things were floundering. In 1980 Ronald Regan ran against Carter and won the presidency. Tax cuts were popular and gradually things changed with income and wealth inequality now much higher, in USA, than before. Reagan symbolically removed the solar panels from the White House.
Happy Birthday to former President Jimmy Carter who I hear turns 100 on Tuesday October 1.
President during my college years and a bit beyond. 1977-1981.
I remember him for advocating less energy consumption to help us get through the energy crisis, back then. We were running out of easy to drill liquid petroleum. One of his famous statements was how dependent we were on a thin line of oil tankers stretching halfway around the world.
He advocated alternative energy and had solar panels installed at the White House. He also advocated American energy independence with something called the Carter Synfuels Program; basically mining shale and cooking it to squeeze out the last drops of American oil. Coal production and gasification was also seen as a solution as USA had plenty of coal reserves.
Since then, new technology has made getting oil out of shale much easier than thought back then. USA is now basically energy independent, but another problem has cropped up; climate change.
Solar, wind and other alternative technologies have significantly improved since those years bringing the price of alternative energy down.
I would like us to see a return to Carter's type of advocacy for conservation and modification of consumptive lifestyles plus continued advancement of the cleaner technologies.
Carter was also noted as an advocate for international human rights with his UN ambassador, Andrew Young, a big figure in that era of hope.
At some point Andrew did have to leave that post, but I forgot the details.
On gay rights, that era could be thought of as ancient history compared to the recent progress made in USA on that topic.
I remember a ground breaking meeting between top White House staff and a group called the National Gay Taskforce. The president wasn't at that meeting, but it was seen as a big step forward at that time. Gay rights was gaining ground at the grass roots level and that was possibly the first recognition at the White House.
Carter's presidency was buffeted many unfortunate events beyond his control such as the Iranian hostage crisis and the Three Mile Island nuclear power incident.
Toward the end of his presidency, there was some feeling that things were floundering. In 1980 Ronald Regan ran against Carter and won the presidency. Tax cuts were popular and gradually things changed with income and wealth inequality now much higher, in USA, than before. Reagan symbolically removed the solar panels from the White House.
I'm curious how the meeting between Trump and Zelensky turned out?
Posted on Facebook Sept. 28 2024.
I'm curious how the meeting between former President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky turned out. I haven't seen any results from meeting in the news yet, but I have been out on the McKenzie River Trail anyway. Forgot to bring my radio and I was likely out of cell coverage much of the way if I'd wanted to look at my phone instead of dodging tree roots across the trail.
Both presidents have nearly opposite strategies. Trump would deal and likely give land, such as Crimea to Russia. Zelensky would fight until every acre is returned to Ukraine. I wonder how that meeting went?
I'm curious how the meeting between former President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky turned out. I haven't seen any results from meeting in the news yet, but I have been out on the McKenzie River Trail anyway. Forgot to bring my radio and I was likely out of cell coverage much of the way if I'd wanted to look at my phone instead of dodging tree roots across the trail.
Both presidents have nearly opposite strategies. Trump would deal and likely give land, such as Crimea to Russia. Zelensky would fight until every acre is returned to Ukraine. I wonder how that meeting went?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)