Vacant land in Bellingham area that is held for investment purposes is vulnerable to becoming troublesome encampments for the homeless.

Privately owned vacant lots, in Bellingham and county areas, are vulnerable to becoming homeless encampments. This is due to the high value of property / cost of housing in this area as well as nationwide.

The city will sometimes have to clean up an encampment if it becomes too large and troublesome. The bill can be sent to the landlord in the form of a lean on the property.

Owning vacant lots, for investment purposes, is a bad idea; if just to wait for appreciation. It's better to have plans for building, or using the land soon, rather than letting it sit.

Reducing regulations, such as single family zoning, can help. Some of the vacant lots could be fast tracked into housing and density. Hopefully, this can address the need for more affordable housing.

Other lands could be used for garden space and parklands for quality of life in the neighborhoods. Sometimes volunteers can turn vacant land into garden space. On the other hand, open space is often owned by the public, as in city parks, but that requires spending tax dollars.

Cared for open space, or even development, is better than just a bunch of vacant lots with absentee private owners.

Where can the homeless go without vacant lots for tent encampments?

If housing was less expensive, less people would be pushed into that downward spiral of homelessness and sometimes angry, destructive behavior.

Even some tent encampments might be okay. Living in RVs, parked along Bellingham streets, can be an innovative solution for affordable housing. Tiny home villages are good.

If there isn't sewer service, composting toilets can work. Providing garbage pickup to RV, tiny home and even tent, low income neighborhoods, could work in my idealistic world. Then again, the people, including residents of these Hooverville type areas, should live responsibly as well.

There is the concept of "intentional communities."

Today's rat race society may be driving many folks mad, however.

Both Republicans and Democrats should back away from class and identity warfare rhetoric.

Some folks think the Democrats should back off a bit from social issues and focus on economics. I have a somewhat different take.

I do think both the Democrats and Republicans should back off from class and identity warfare. They should place less emphasis on resentment of others over differences in income, privilege and so forth. Not that those aren't important factors, however. It's just that the politics of resentment hasn't been working. There are more creative ways to reduce income, wealth, privelege and race inequality.

I do see social issues as important to the environment and the economy. For instance more modern attitudes toward sexuality reduces the burden that population growth places on the environment.

Topics discussed in local politics tend to be more useful that topics discussed in national politics.

Where the rubber meets the road, local community planning, in cities and counties across USA, are the most interesting topics to me.

There are many tradeoffs in life. The Walmarts can offer lower prices and even sometimes higher wages due to something called "economy of scale." Big, such as in bulk buying, or the most advanced technologies, is often an advantage, but what are the tradeoffs.

We can't have it all, but we can take a clear look at our priorities and our planning. Small is often better for intimacy and community spirit. Do we need all the material wealth that efficiency, alone, can provide? Is efficiency our only goal, versus our humanity or our lives not being reduced to stressful rat races.

Can lower income people have what they need to survive if we seek community over efficiency? Is maximizing consumption and money measured wealth our most important goals or are there other ways to measure wealth; such as quality time and personal fulfillment with community.

These are all tradeoffs we need to discuss as we strive for consensus in our local communities across the nation.

Can minority voters be blamed for Harris' loss?

I've heard that if the 2024 vote was up to minorities, while white males were not counted in the vote, Kamala Harris would have won. It's still the case that enthusiasm for Harris, among minority voters, has significantly degraded; relative to the minority vote for Biden in 2020. For instance 45% of Latino voters are said to have voted for Trump in 2024 versus a much lower percentage for Biden in 2020.

I do think that the Democrats and the left do place too much emphasis on trying to make things fair. Fairness is one of many things that is important, but I think there is too much emphasis on personal pocketbook issues.

How much consumption, income and wealth is enough? Resentment of folks, who are better off, can be problematic. Comparing oneself with others can lead to unhappiness. Yes, fairness is important and certain basics; like a place to call home, safety, food and fulfilling lives are important, but beyond that the struggle for equality is like hitting one's head against a brick wall.

Society is unlikely to ever be totally fair, but it can be more reasonable than it is today.

I do think the economy is important, but there is more to economics than just distribution of wealth. There is also quality of life, preservation of the environment, health and so forth. What are the end goals of our economy? Those are the big questions. What type of communities does the economy create?

I would like to see the emphasis, of the left and the Democratic Party, shift toward things like sustainable communities, health and happiness.

We need to change the national discussion toward issues like affordable housing, transportation, how to implement greener energy, technology, logistics, science and so forth.

Some of these issues are dealt with at the local levels, in cities and counties across the country, but they are sadly missing from the big stages of national politics.

Pointing the finger at the people, themselves, might empower the people.

I'm not surprised that Trump won the popular vote. It was only by a close margin, however. At the same time, It does seem to confirm my idea that the people are the problem; not the institutions of government or business.

Yes, the big institutions do have more power than a single individual, but the people, in whole, are the ultimate power. Culture is part of the problem, for instance the lust for money.

I think the people are most of the problem, but I would also like to believe that the people can be empowered. The way we live our lives each day, in the marketplace and in our communities, can hold lots of power.

Some immigrants wish to pull up the drawbridge.

I read that 45% of Hispanic vote went for Trump. Still, if the vote was just among Hispanics, Harris would have won, but why did Trump's percentages increase among voters normally thought of as in the Democrat's base?

One factor might be drawbridge thinking among immigrant populations. Drawbridge thinking is certainly evident among white populations. When people move to a place they like more than where they lived before, they often want to put up the drawbridge to keep too many from following. Also to keep out some of the elements, in the countries they have fled, from following them to where they now live in USA.

For many years, I've jokingly said that conservatives want to build a wall on the southern border while liberals, here in Bellingham, WA. want to build the wall on I-5 to keep our small city from turning into a big city.

Global South giving up bicycles for the West's old toxic cars.

Some folks thought it was a good idea to send used cars, from the west, to Africa. If they are still drivable, they can provide less expensive transportation, but small nations, like Ghana, are flooded with cars, traffic and pollution; plus, when the car dies, toxic waste.

Second hand computers, cars and so forth might seem like charity, but not always.

This very interesting recent segment on PBS News Hour.

Poetic justice. The Onion buys Infowars.

Poetic justice.

Seems like this makes lots of sense. The Onion that honestly admits it is a fantasy / fake / humorous / creative media outlet buys Inforwars.

Maybe RFK Jr. should stay away from medical science. Could he fight obesity by overseeing a department building recreation centers, bike paths and sidewalks?

RFK Jr. does think obesity is a bad thing. He has some quack like science ideas, but a broken analog clock is correct twice per day.

Obesity is a health hazard, but the solution is partially outside the scope of medical science so it can also be addressed by city planning.

Build more sidewalks, encourage less rural sprawl, build bike paths, think about parks plus recreation and community centers; where people can meet face to face.

Are these the things RFK Jr. would be promoting? Compartmental thinking tells me that's the job for other departments outside the scope of Health and Human Services.

Some Arabs in Michigan shot themselves in the foot by not voting for Harris.

Anger is usually a bad tool in politics. Excerpted from a recent article I saw.

Visuals of the conflict — with tens of thousands of deaths collectively in Gaza and Lebanon — stirred anger among many in Arab and Muslim communities about President Joe Biden and Harris' backing of Israel.

Trump picks what pro-Israel conservatives call a "dream team." Those in the community with concerns have specifically pointed to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, nominated as Trump's ambassador to Israel. Huckabee has consistently rejected the idea of a Palestinian state in territories seized by Israel, strongly supported Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and opposed a two-state solution, claiming "there really isn't such a thing" as Palestinians in referring to the descendants of people who lived in Palestine before the establishment of Israel.

Michigan-arab-american-voters-trump-cabinet-picks.

Looking at land area geography behind the headlines can provide a new perspective.

I've been comparing land areas and populations for various countries. For instance the lands of Israel and Palistine, that so much of the world is fighting over, is small compared to even the state of Washington, here in USA.

We have lots of land in USA, yet we struggle trying to densify our cities for greener, transit oriented neighborhoods. Our neighborhood associations often fight density to accomidate our population growth. They still often hang onto the obsolete dream of single family zoning.

Link over to my space on Flickr for the image essay. Click forward on the side arrows on Flickr.

My college major was Geography; a different perspective than many commentators use.

Lack of gratitude, on both the left and the right, has fed some of the enthusiasm for Republicans who have figured out how to exploit a national mood of grievances.

Seems like many of the folks, who feel they are getting an unfair deal, have been shifting away from the Democrats and toward the Republicans. What's called the "working class" and low income folks have been constituencies thought to be in the Democrat base. Seems like folks complaining about their situations are increasingly moving toward the Republicans leaving the Democrat's base to be more made up from well educated professionals.

Lack of gratitude, mixed with anger about one's lot in life, is now feeding more energy into the Republican Party.

I would guess that well educated, professionals do have it pretty good, here in USA. Some blue collar laborers will say that life at a university is like being in an "Ivory Tower." Life that can be quite fulfilling, though I'm sure, if one looks more closely, it does have it's stresses as well; tenure battles, office politics and whatever. I remember the term "publish or parish."

Still, it looks like the act of complaining is starting to feed more energy toward the Republican Party as time goes on.

Complaining about those who have "privilege" is starting to hit some of the complainers, themselves, in the back. Folks who talk about the privilege of billionaires are now finding themselves in the same target; for instance most of my friends, who are homeowners, are millionaires; on paper at least. Most of my friends tend to be liberal as I'm living in Bellingham.

The rise in asset values, beyond the rise in wages, has buoyed the billionaires, but it has also increased the wealth gap between homeowners and renters. It has made buying a home, for first time homebuyers, or renting a home, extremely difficult.

Gaps are getting wider between those who can afford a lifestyle of travel and others who are working in low wage jobs. Even some small and struggling business owners can feel left out of privilege while other folks can take an occasional trip to Europe on their frequent flyer miles.

Many folks lives are quite fulfilling, but gratitude can be in short supply.

Those who are even more poor, such as the homeless, also feel left behind. If they go to the polls, they might think, "nothing has worked so far, so we might as well give Republicans a try."

The wave of negative thinking, along with anger and finger pointing, is starting to lean Republican, or at least the Republicans have shrewdly learned how to take advantage of that sentiment.

I myself tend to be fairly well educated, though I don't feel the need to keep up with higher income folks as long as my basics are met. I'm somewhat of a minimalist, materialistically at least, but I feel like I've had a good life.

I think some of the complaining and finger pointing has helped the Republican brand. I also think Republicans are working it into their campaign strategy. It's kind of a strategy like "divide and conquer" which takes advantage of people's tendency toward anger. Often those who have lots of anger will turn on one another fueling infighting that people, who have more power and privilege, can take advantage of. Divide and conquer.

Liberal causes often sink from internal strife, but conservatives and Republicans also have their internal strife as well.

How we live our lives can make a big difference.

Too many births? I say support Planned Parenthood. Tony Hinchcliffe is just joking, but Trump refused to even attend White House Correspondent Dinner when the jokes were on him.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

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?

As we get more crowded are we getting more savage? Possible reasons behind vitriol about immigration.

I've heard people say that as the population of certain animals increases in a limited space, such as rats in a cage, the animals become more savage in attacking one another. Some say that will happen with humans as earth gets more crowded.

That may help explain Trump's anti immigrant rhetoric as well as the growing reaction against immigration in some European countries and some other countries around the world. It also may help explain nimby-ism; the not in my backyard syndrome.

How we plan for and accommodate our growing population makes a difference.

I got to thinking that discord often starts from a traffic situation; an accident, road rage, deputes about police behavior when someone is pulled over in a traffic stop. This recent uproar, in Springfield, Ohio, happened after an accident involving an SUV driven by a Haitian.

I keep thinking too much reliance on private automobiles is a problem. Traffic being one of the main complaints about city life.

A rapidly growing population can put stress of housing, schools, infrastructure and various social services. Good planning is a key to making the best of a situation. In some cases, growth can be a good thing. Growth is often seen as good in economic terms as well as, in cultural terms. Larger cities can offer amenities in the arts and so forth.

Much does depend on how we plan and adapt to the situations we face.

See my article in The Betty Pages. Is overpopulation driving anti immigration sentiment?

Trump falsly thinks crime is going up in USA and down overseas. The opposite is more likely true.

I listened to the Sept. 10 2024 presidential debate on the radio. Donald Trump seems to have a strong hatred for immigrants. He didn't even differentiate legal from illegal immigrants during the debate. He made it sound like the immigrants are mostly criminals saying crime, in USA, is going up while crime overseas is going down implying that other countries are sending us their criminals. This statement was fact checked by the moderator.

Per capita crime rate, in USA, has been going down again since a post pandemic spike.

Meanwhile I, would guess, that it isn't true that crime has gone down overseas. In some countries, like Haiti, gangs and crime have been rampant; a reason why so many Haitian refugees are fleeing that country. For the most part, the refugees are trying to escape crime and other problems overseas.

Yes, it does seem like the situation is overwhelming. There are over 8 billion people, on this planet and I wouldn't be surprised if possibly billions of folks have the dream of living in America. Most of them can't even get to our borders, let alone get in.

Here's my take. Yes, population growth does bring it's challenges as well as its benefits.

I can see worrying that criminals and terrorists could slip by overwhelmed vetting processes at the borders. Yes, a legitimate worry, but I do keep hearing that per capita crime, among native born Americans, is higher than among immigrants.

There's the lack of affordable housing in much of USA and growing traffic on our roads. Yes, population growth does have consequences.

At the same time, population growth brings some benefits, such as new talent in our labor force and more customers for our businesses. There's growing vitality and population fueling our economy. How we handle the situation makes a big difference. I definitely side with Kamala Harris, more than Donald Trump. While both candidates seemed to be stumbling on the actual issues, Harris did talk about the need to build more housing. Yes, housing construction has lagged behind population growth, in USA, for many years.

Back when John McCain was running for president, his vice presidential pick, Sara Palin, was noted for the phrase "drill baby drill" for increasing domestic oil production. Now we need the phrase "build baby build" for housing construction.

Some folks might think those phrases are not politically correct as being sexist. Still, much of society thinks in sound bytes and we do need to build, or figure out how to use the residential space, we already have, more efficiently. Let's here it for more studio apartments within transit or biking distance to most of our destinations.

Big picture topics, like this, don't get discussed much in the debates and most people seem to focus on the optics more than the topics. I tend to think "big picture" topics as I listen on the radio so I am less aware of the optics.

State of Washington. Near the top for health and longevity in USA.

I've seen some statistics that Washington State has the second highest rate of longevity in USA; second only to Hawaii. Long life implies good health.

In spite of various criticisms, we must be doing some good things here in Washington State; both the people as well as our local and state governments.

What's the best ways to ease off fossil fuel?

Harris is backing away from earlier comments related to a ban on fracking. Media "gotcha" sound bytes, but it does make sense.

I've always thought that it's better to try and reduce consumption of fossil fuels, rather than reducing production. Trying to reduce our fossil fuel addiction by cutting off supply seems to just cause political instability even threatening democracy itself as angry consumers react to high prices for the things they still depend on.

If we are in a "climate emergency" we could try bans on excessive driving, but making it harder for people to get to work could upend our economy and our democracy. We could declare another state of emergency, like we did for the corona virus. Jobs ended, people went on unemployment, folks stayed home and in some cases did find they could still work from home. Money was printed. Inflation sped up.

I'm not necessarily advocating this, but we could try and revolutionize society by slamming on the breaks again. During corona virus, it did save some lives and may have taught us that the constant rat race of our economy and the lust for money isn't necessarily the only values we have in life. Doing this is definitely a political minefield.

I still hope we can incrementally transition to a green economy while keeping civil society intact. Just outlawing something doesn't usually work. Some people think that outlawing something can push industry and technology in a new direction. There may be some truth to that, in certain cases, but there is also the political minefield if new directions aren't easy.

These topics are nuanced and complex so any "I'll just fix it if I get elected" statement, like Trump often makes, is something to be wary of.

A possible way out of the dilemma between inflation and recession.

It's hard for the Federal Reserve to determine what the best interest rate is between spurring inflation or spurring recession. It's a "one size fits all" problem.

One problem is that asset values, such as real estate and stocks, are too high so the rest of the economy struggles to maintain these values; for instance high rents.

Maybe they should have two interest rates. One set higher to cool inflationary speculation on existing assets and the other set lower for creating new assets; such as new housing construction.

The law of unintended consequences may force Republicans to cut Social Security benefits.

On the campaign trail, very few Republicans will say they wish to cut Social Security benefits, but they tend to oppose raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax. Without increased revenue, the benefits will, most likely, need to be cut due diminishing funds in the trust fund and demographic changes in the population. Cuts would have to happen anyway due to the law of unintended consequences.

When they walk back some bans on fossil fuels

Some conservatives are now trying to trap Kamila Harris by a comment she made a few years ago supporting the idea of a ban on fracking. Now they say, if she backs off from that idea, she, supposedly, lied.

I say, a statement of opinion isn't a lie and opinions can evolve over time.

Much of the energy, in USA, does come from fracking for oil and natural gas. Cutting back domestic energy production causes political headaces when gas prices soar. It's back to problems such as automobile addiction. The consumer, to a large extent, is the problem.

Bans may not be that good of an idea due to the political pushback they cause. Usually the goals of a ban aren't as easy to meet as first thought.

Climate change is a problem, however. Incentivising green technology needs to be done. The best way to get to this goal is a good question.
,br /> The threat of a ban might spur innovation and new technology, but it does have it's drawbacks. Consumerism is something caused by the economy, culture and people. More needs to be said about that from the bully pulpit, but that is difficult for politicians to do as they struggle to get votes and money from the vary people who are the consumers.

I heard, on CBC Radio, that Vancouver, BC recently lifted a ban on future construction using natural gas in heating. Vancouver, a liberal city concerned about climate change, is also an extremely expensive city. It's struggle to provide affordable housing has lead to a narrow vote, by city council, to back away from the natural gas ban; at least for now.

Again, car addiction, consumerism, sky high property values, housing costs and so forth create a toxic mix. Vancouver does have pretty good public transit and bike routes through the city. They have the Skytrain. That city has some great things for a more climate friendly future, including density in neighborhoods near parks. At the same time, well planned cities, that become popular, suffer from sky high property values leading to high housing costs. It may be difficult to make a ban on natural gas stick if heatpump technology increases construction costs, even if it lowers long term heating bills.

My idea for point of sale phone number card, versus keying in phone number each time.

A few years ago, I thought there ought to be a universal card with a bar code for one's phone number to use at businesses that have club cards. It would be easier than sorting through a wallet full cards for each business.

Guess what. It seems like most businesses have dropped issuing cards and they have customers enter their phone numbers at the till anyway. They say "key in your phone number" which brings up your file on their data base.

How about a universal phone number card, like I had thought before? This, versus keying in one's phone number each time.

I also think maybe the bankcard takes care of this as I've noticed, when I use a bankcard, my phone and email comes up in the receipt anyway.

One can pay using their phone itself. I've never tried that in a brick and mortar business, but it's getting more common.

Problem with paying by phone is getting the phone and the store's till to handshake. A card would be easier. A card could work with cash purchases as well.

These days, a card doesn't even need a bar code. It can use an RFID chip.

Looking forward to hopefully good policies in a Harris Administration.

I'm happy to see Kamala Harris as the presumptive Democratic nominee, though I still don't know much about her take on issues. We can now learn a crash course in that, but possibly more importantly, the policy wonks around her will matter. They help formulate the policies, in economics and so forth, that we will need going forward.

Much of the rhetoric of the left has been about trying to get even; so to speak. Reducing income and wealth inequality. These are good goals, but different than my main agenda.

My main agenda is changing culture so friendships, health and sustainable lifestyles become more important than money. I also value innovation, open mindedness, kindness, patience and so forth.

I still see myself more to the left than to the right, but almost in a different ballgame.

The Republicans are running with us versus the elites politics. Now it's time for the Democrats to offer messages for a sustainable world.

Rather than trying to beat Republicans at marketing to the working class, I think Democrats need to appeal to the need for a sustainable society, versus climate change, authoritarianism and chaos.

They need to appeal to both the rich, powerful allies as well as the poor and working class.

Many of the wealthy are culturally liberal due to the correlation between education and wealth. Even many of the rich realize that taxes aren't all bad and personal wealth is of no use if society and the world around us is crumbing.

Blaming corporations for our problems, rather than looking to ourselves for solutions, shifts from left to right.

While I advocate lifestyles that are alternative to the mainstream, I haven't been that much of a critic of institutions of government or business. I haven't even been that critical of large corporations. Instead, I think it's up to us to live our lives as best we can toward a better and more sustainable world.

Now I note, from the writings of some pundits, that working class rebellion against institutions has shifted toward Trumpism. Blame and finger pointing has been shifting rightward in recent years. It's still not my idea that we, as voters, consumers and participants in the community, are the key to reducing climate change and solving many of society's problems.

In the past, the right wing tended to blame problems on government while the left wing blamed the super rich and corporations. Now it looks like what's called the "working class" is turning toward blaming it all on so called "elites."

Still, however, much of the opinion is manipulated, as always, by celebrities and billionaires.

From Taylor Swift to Donald Trump, himself, the people follow, yet most of the people continue living lives that lead to climate change, lust for money, unaffordable housing, nimbyism and so forth.

There should be a higher interest rate for speculation and a lower one for creating something.

The Federal Reserve walks a tightrope between raising interest rates which could lead to recession and lowering interest rates which could lead to inflation. Trying to figure out the best "one size fits all" rate is problematic.

I've often thought they should be able to set different interest rates for different uses of the money. Rates should be high for speculation on existing assets and low for creating new assets. For instance speculation that bids up the price of existing housing should be discouraged while construction of new housing should be encouraged.

Housing has been one of the big drivers of inflation in recent years. Raising interest rates tries to cool speculation and inflation, but it also can reduce construction of new housing which would increase supply.

There is a similar situation in business as money can be used just to bid up stock prices and have companies buy one another (existing assets) or money can be used to build new assets.

Government can be a good use for low interest rates when it uses money for improving infrastructure.

Rather than having a one size fits all solution for interest rates, I think there should be a way to have different interest rates for different uses of the money.

I also think the Federal government, thus Biden these days, gets blamed for things like housing inflation, but much of the cause of short supply is caused by local zoning ordinances. The Feds don't usually weigh in on zoning decisions done at the local level.

State governments, such as here in Washington State, are now starting to try and weigh in on local zoning to increase housing supply. Recent state legislation is starting to discourage cities, within the state, from having too much restrictive single family zoning.

Biden future plans may depend on the polls.

Biden plans to stay in the race, but I got to thinking that how well he does in the polling data, during the next few weeks, should effect his final decision. I don't know if it will, or not, but the polls are one factor related to electability.

When the IRS says you paid too much.

I recently got a computer generated letter that I had filled out my income tax form incorrectly. My requested refund, from withholding, was way too small. Turns out I didn't owe any taxes so I got the entire withholding back.

Yes, figuring out taxes can be complicated. This discrepancy had to do with how much tax I owe on my Social Security income. I guess I owe no tax on that due to my overall income bracket. It can be convoluted how things are explained.

The withholding was from my pension income, but I got it all back. I don't mind paying some taxes, but apparently, I didn't owe income tax this year.

Conservatives often say that the rich pay most of the income taxes that run the government while liberals say that the rich don't pay enough taxes.

When one looks at the figures, both sides are likely telling different sides of the truth. I would guess that the rich have most of the money so they pay most of the taxes. Low income people often pay no income tax. The middle class pays quite a bit in taxes also.

One's circumstances really effect taxes. If someone has lots of business expenses, they often get to write off those expenses, making it look like the rich get off tax free. On the other hand, if their businesses were taxed to death; consumers would loose the goods, services and jobs that those businesses provide.

As for the fairness of the overall economy, it doesn't tend to be fair for many reasons. I keep hearing that folks who own assets are wealthy compared to those who just work. In other words things like real estate can go way up in value compared to wages.

I try and always look at the big picture, but sometimes I don't pay that much attention to what seems like the triviality of my own personal finances.

On immigration, the welcome mat gets tarnished when overwhelmed.

One can say that large numbers of voters in Europe and USA are sending a message that immigrants are no longer welcome; as in "there's no room at the inn, not even the manger out back." That's my bleak assessment of human nature; folks turn to savagery by circumstance.

It's not the fault of the immigrants themselves who are mostly bringing needed skills and vitality to our economy. It's partially a function of overwhelming numbers of people; an echo of world population growth that has occurred since my childhood. In 1960, there were 3 billion people on the planet, today the estimate is past 8 billion.

Population growth is slowing down, but immigration is an echo effect of population growth that has already occurred; not to mention rise in authoritarianism around the world plus climate change.

Some folks say they are just against illegal immigration, but the waiting lists to immigrate legally are very long due to more folks wishing to immigrate than the quotas set for legal immigration. Congress can adjust those quotas, but talk of adjusting the quotas is seldom heard in political debates about immigration.

I think many people fear that more legal immigration would just bring more illegal immigration as well; like the mental image of bailing out the ocean with a teacup.

Unfortunately, lots of people demonize the immigrants, themselves, who for the most part are innocent and can be a great asset to this country. They bring skills and vitality, not to mention young workers paying into our Social Security system, when they are legally approved.

People do worry about crime, but I hear that there is a higher percentage of crime caused by native born Americans than recent immigrants. However, one worry that does seem legitimate to me, is the ability of border patrol agents to vet recent arrivals when the numbers overwhelm the system. Yes, it does take time to do background checks. Large caseloads, versus a small number of border patrol staff, can be an issue.

From what I hear, in the news, illegal immigration has slowed down significantly since Biden's recent executive order dealing with that issue.

As for infrastructure and population growth, planning is key. Many cities, in this country, are way behind in the number of housing units needed. Whether there is room, in our cities, to park all the cars, if huge numbers of people continue to insist on using private cars, is a factor as well.

Contradictory demands stand in the way of transitioning to a greener economy.

Transitioning to green technology, while maintaining the American people's consumptive lifestyles, is likely to be very difficult. I listen to both liberal and conservative experts and I especially hear from conservatives about logistical problems with things like mandating electric 18 wheeler trucks. Things like weight of batteries + vehicle, given road weight restrictions, for instance. Another topic is sources for the minerals in batteries, given restrictions on domestic mining. There's lots of nimbyism and contradictory environmental concerns that need to be sorted through.

Some conservatives make good points about economic logistics; when they aren't just yacking about the culture wars.

I still think the economic transition is possible, but it will take a lot more patience than most people have in this era of blame and finger pointing. I think we can make these transitions, but the current culture of blame and greed puts obstacles in the way.

In an ideal world, technology would keep advancing and evolve into greener practices, but it will be difficult to bring a lot of changes without people, themselves, accepting change. We will need changes; such as using more public transit and less private cars, on the one hand, while on the other hand, accepting more things like wind turbines, solar panels, mines and even nuclear power.

Transportation is just one example, but people will need to be open to big changes across the entire economy.

Some of these changes can be seen as improvements, rather than sacrifices; such as enhanced safety of public transit versus private cars and the health benefits of things like bicycling. Benefits; such as the quieter world of electric motors versus internal combustion engines comes to mind as well.

Advancing technology can help us. I don't think we can go back to the past; especially with our much larger population than before.

I wonder if we can make the transition and changes we need, given the political climate and the fact that so many people feel like they aren't getting a fair deal. People seem to always want more wealth.

Our entire culture will need some deep changes not just at the top, but at the grass roots level as well.

I wrote this after hearing an interview on June 26 Pullman Radio News with Idaho Congressperson Russ Fulture. After his dismal post mortem of Biden's performance at the debate (to be expected from a Republican) he talked about electric truck mandates. Yes, if we use current battery technology, it adds extra weight, on road surfaces, to an already heavy vehicle for tractor trailers. There are lots of rules about weight of trucks on highways. That could mean less weight devoted to the load which reduces "economy of scale" in transport. More cost, or a need for less consumption.

I personally think mandates are a bad idea leading to lots of pushback. For instance about the vaccine, it's a good vaccine, but the mandates may have backfired in terms of the overall goal of getting people vaccinated.

An example of change in culture could mean going to more rail, for transport of goods, versus highway trucks, but rail lines need to be built and changes in the way business is done needs to happen. This could also mean some inconvenience with less door to door delivery, but we could go back to having more patience as consumers.

Barge on Lake Washington Ship Canal. Image taken during my June 2024 trip to Seattle.

He also panned the proposals to remove dams on the Snake River and the loss of both hydropower and barge traffic. Yes, that fits the narrative of contradiction. Barges that ship wheat out of that Northern Idaho / Eastern Washington region could be another way to reduce reliance on trucks, but there are proposals to remove the dams. Lewiston now calls itself "the seaport of Idaho" due to barge traffic on the Snake / Columbia River system.

Yes, lots of contradictions in demands for having an economy while protecting the environment. Logistics that will need to be dealt with.

Link to my most recent bike tour photos on Flickr.

Pictures from my recent (June 21 to 23) trip to Seattle are now at the top of my most recent trips album on Flickr.

My take after the June 27 presidential debate between Biden and Trump.

If Biden remains the nominee, I would still vote for him based on the issues and the team behind the president. Optics, of a debate on television, is not everything. Still, I admit optics could loose an election.

I also think that we place too much emphasis on the president. The future of this country depends on how the American people treat one another at the grassroots level. How people respond, at all levels, to the challenges and opportunities going forward. Much also depends on who gets elected to Congress and at the state levels. If Trump were to become president, Congress can prevent him from becoming a dictator depending on who's in Congress.

I am already sort of writing a post mortem for the 2024 election, but the election is still months away and lots of things can happen between now and then.

Is gender really that important in every discussion group?

At the start of small group discussions it seems like a lot of time is wasted asking everyone for their name and preferred pronouns. There are other things about each person that's more interesting to me; like someone's quick response to a question about the topic being discussed.

I usually don't remember just names and pronouns where as other topics are more unique and memorable and likely better at starting a discussion.

Pronouns and even names may only matter if one is talking about another person in third person such as "he, she, they, who, was just at the microphone, made a good point." In that case one could maybe always say "they, or that person, sitting over there, made a good point."

Seems like when time is limited, getting to the meat of the topic is more interesting.

In quite a few cases, I've met people once in a group discussion and then never seen the person again. I'll remember the topics, but not the name. If I don't see the person again, it may not matter what name or pronouns they go by.

In some cases, I'll admit, I've known someone for over a year and can pick up a meaningful conversation, where we left off last meeting, but never learned their name. Their ideas and experiences were more unique and meaningful to me.

Much of the rest of it is just "check the category or box" and move on. In many cases people don't fit in a box anyway.

In some cases, people don't feel safe being expected to reveal their gender preference; especially depending on the topic and the nature of the group that is having the a discussion.

Scientific discussion can include speculation. Religious ideas can be part of the discussion as speculation.

I believe some ideas, thought of as religious or supernatural, can have validity as speculation. In science, there are many lines of thought that are speculation; for instance String Theory in cosmology. Scientists often speculate about big ideas beyond what's considered more proven fact.

String Theory, Quantum Gravity and other ideas, on the frontiers of physics and cosmology, are fodder for educated discussion. There may be a time in the future when more clear evidence becomes available bringing some these ideas into the realm of more fact, or on the other hand, these ideas might be discarded. In the past ideas that societies had about the earth being flat have been discarded, for the most part.

Speculation about big questions such as what brought the universe into existence, the meaning of life, whether there is any intent or design to the universe beyond us and even speculation about an afterlife, is all fodder for good discussion.

There is still a lot that we don't know. I think religion makes a mistake when speculations about these things are thought of as being proven fact. Speculation does have a place in real science, but speculation shouldn't be confused with more proven fact.

Thousands of years ago, many societies thought it was a fact that the earth was flat. This was based on the evidence one sees just standing on the level ground. We could have stuck to those so called facts, or we could speculate and explore the possibilities of things beyond that worldview.

My dream job; sort of.

When I graduated from college, my dream was to have my own newspaper based on my opinions. A professor told me about something called the IF Stone Weekly; an individual publishing his own paper. Not knowing much about that, I set out to publish on my own.

Since then, the advent of social media has, basically, given me my own media outlet. Not huge, but still, it's me.

Before Facebook and all of that, I did some self publishing. Sent little newsletters out in the mail. Even had my own second hand mimeograph machine, for a while.

It never got very far in terms of commercial viability, but I've had a good time all along. My work as a custodian paid the bills.

I have links to things, including this blog, my Flickr and Facebook walls, at www.theslowlane.com

Pandemic is mostly old news as the vaccines and other factors have brought most of life back to pre pandemic normal.

Factionalism within the anti vax folks means potential problems for the Trump Campaign as Kennedy's third party bid could drain away Trump voters.

Trump did support Operation Warp Speed vaccine research at beginning of pandemic, but is now trying to also appeal to anti vax crowd.

Meanwhile, it does seem like pandemic is mostly old news as the vaccines and other factors have brought most of life back to pre pandemic normal.

Saving money by putting the elderly more at risk.

About the stereotype of conservatives and liberals, I got to thinking that conservatives were less enthused about the shutdown of businesses during the pandemic. They tended to think schools and business should have been allowed more leeway to be open.

That would have lead to more deaths of vulnerable and elderly people whereas younger people, such as school children, were less apt to die from the pandemic.

Less elderly helps the budget by saving money spent on Medicare. Meanwhile school age folks are said to be suffering now, due to lack of face to face school during quarantine. Maybe the old folks could have taken a hit for the team, so to speak, as I remember a lieutenant governor, in Texas, suggested early on in the pandemic.

On the other hand, I'm glad they tried to reduce death rates during the pandemic. I also have heard that some children learned better on line than sitting in classroom settings.

The cup is either half full or half empty. Things are a tradeoff and there are both good and bad consequences to various choices that governments make. There is sure a lot of complaining about things, however.

Encouraging news from India.

India has had a big election recently. Looks like moderately good news. The prime minister, Modi, said to be somewhat of a one sided religious nationalist, did win reelection, but opposition parties gained ground. He was expecting more of a landslide. I think he will have to work with the opposition and form coalitions.

India is now the most populous country in the world surpassing China, so what happens in India can make a big splash.

India has quite a few different religions besides the majority Hindu. It also has Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Sikh and other religions as well as non believers; a country with lots of diversity of thought. USA, another country with diversity of thought.

Maybe Trump and much of his evangelical Christian base should just admit that they are into hedonism and the prosperity gospel.

Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and even Richard Nixon got into trouble with coverups. In Trump's case, hush money paid to keep Stormy Daniels from talking about an affair. In Clinton's case lying about the Monica Lewinski affair. In Nixon's case, the Watergate Coverup.

I wonder what would have happened if Trump, for instance, had just been open about it? How would the Evangelical Christian base react? How many of them would part company with him, or stick with him?

Should we have different interest rates for different uses?

Creating new money can lead to inflation. Here are some partial solutions I think might help tame the inflation problem a bit.

People talk about the Fed creating different windows for providing money, like teller windows in a bank.

For instance, I think about this related to funding the private sector. Create a window of low interest loans to fund new supply for things we need like housing. Low interest rates if business is building new housing; especially affordable housing, but even just housing in general. There was the phrase "drill baby drill." Now we can have "build baby build." Bring on more supply to satisfy supply and demand.

Another window would jack up iterest rates if the money is used by private investors to bid up the price of existing real estate and assets. A high interest rate for speculators bidding up prices, but not accomplishing new supply.

As for government debt, which is often accused of driving up inflation by creating the need to print money, we do seem to need government. Yes, we can try to make it more efficient, but the big items in government spending are usually off the table, so to speak, for cuts. Medicare, Military, Veterans benefits, disaster relief. Other tiny parts of the budget, like NASA are also important. I like things like advancing science, but even conservatives seem to want "American exceptionalism." If we cut NASA, or something like the Biden Chips program, we could be seading the high ground in STEM to other countries like China.

Speaking of disaster relief, the pandemic is an example of all bets are off. We aren't going to cut now, we do need 3 trillion more dollars to get us through this situation.

How about allowing the government to "lock in" the prevailing interest rate at the time that the spending was authorized?

Before and during the pandemic, interest rates were low. We borrowed on the cheap. Similar to what many homeowners get, can the government lock in low interest rates on past debt; like a mortgage?

Now some folks are worried about inflation. One of the worse examples of inflation during and soon after the pandemic was the rise in home values. I hear close to 20% in a year. Rents going up also. This contributing to what is called housing insecurity for many folks.

We do need to ratchet up interest rates on speculation, but there are things we still need for our survival that could still go to the low rate window.

We need to build more housing for our growing population and economy, but another bank, the Earth, is also limited. Sprawl all over the farmlands of Whatcom County.

Reduce population growth, smaller homes and footprints for each individual. Live like my (Robert Ashworth) lifestyle. It's a trade off between materialism growth versus some aspects of quality in life. Take time for friendships, slow travel and so forth even if it doesn't pay the money bills. One can still enjoy the fruits of advancing technology. Smartphones do have a smaller footprint than the old style vacume tube radios and televisions.

Do Smartphones distract from meaningful, face to face conversation, or is it the cute dogs folks see out of the corner of their eyes?

In the old days of newspapers, there was the term "above the fold." This was headlines and parts of stories that were on the front page; such as visible in a newspaper vending box, above the fold of the front page. People are less likely to see it and read if it's below the fold.

On Facebook, it's "above the fold" if one doesn't have to click "see more" to read it. On X (formerly Twitter) there is no below the fold; so to speak. X is basically just sound bytes except following a link in the post.

I seldom if ever use X.

These days, there is so much information available that people tend to scroll past lots of stuff. The brain and amount of time available limits how much information we can absorb so folks often avoid going into more depth of discussion.

Being on line exasperates lack of depth to some extent, but it also can enhance depth depending on how it's used. One can navigate something, like Facebook, slowly and interact with more depth given topics one interested in.

We can blame electronics, but I also notice, in face to face conversation, that some folks can be focused valuing depth while others are constantly distracted by things going on around them. When an interesting topic comes up, some folks will interrupt after just a few words when they notice a cute dog walking by.

Someone might ask, "what do you think about the economy," or something like that and then, after one sentence of conversation, someone in the group will notice a dog walking by. They will say, "Oh that's a nice poodle what an interesting color of fir."

Then the dog walker will stop and the conversation switches to types of dogs and so forth. "Where did you get that poodle?"

Often the dogs, themselves, try to have conversation barking and so forth; especially when two parties of people meet who both have dogs.

Dogs sometimes argue as well. One time someone told me that he was walking his dog at a park and another person came along walking a dog. The two dogs started barking and the leashes got tangled. Eventually the two dog owners started arguing as they were trying to untangle the leashes.

If it isn't the dogs, it might be an unusual car driving by. "Look at that pink Cadillac," "I haven't seen one like that in years." Yes, someone's phone often rings to provide distraction as well, but even without cellphones, the distractions of our surroundings can be numerous. We are a species of animal reacting to the things around us. Depth in thought and conversation is often scattered.

Is the middle class American dream actually sustainable?

A big part of the reason why it's harder to get into the American middle class, these days, is that much of the middle class lifestyle is no longer sustainable given it's carbon footprint and so forth. Less space for single family homes given need for things like farmland and habitat preservation.

What constitutes the "good life" needs to be redefined. The 1950s vision is harder to attain these days. A new vision could involve smaller residences, but more advanced technology. There were no Smartphones in the 1950s.

Our community life is different also. Gay rights was in the closet, back then, there were less bike paths, less parks and cheaper schools.

In many ways, life and culture has flourished since the old days. Expectations have grown higher, given things like treatment of disabled people, for instance. There's more worry about protecting the environment, today. Some of toxic things, in the 1950s, were more out of sight, out of mind so maybe there was less anxiety about certain things than there is today. There are around twice as many people in USA today. This can mean more traffic versus the open road.

To regain a sense of gratitude, it seems like we need to redefine our expectations of what the good life means.

Re electing Joe Biden can buy us more time to incrementally create changes toward a more sustainable society.

I tend to be a political moderate leaning slightly to the left. I still like Biden.

Some folks, that are farther left, may not plan to vote for Biden, but it looks like the only other viable choice is Donald Trump.

I think most people tend to be fairly moderate, but some are extreme left while others are extreme right. I think extreme right outnumbers extreme left of voters; especially in rural areas. It looks like it's going to be either Biden or Trump unless one of them dies or steps aside.

The Electoral College tends to give people, in the many low population rural states, an edge over folks in populated states; like California. This factor, plus the larger chunk of voters to the far right, compared to the far left, makes a second Trump term likely. I think most people are more in the middle or even slightly to the left so Biden is closer to that then Trump, but Trump could still win.

To create a society more to the left than Biden, the people need to practice what we preach as consumers, voters and so forth. Our society tends to be too materialistic.

When someone, like Biden is in power, we could flank him to the left by electing more left leaning people in Congress, but what usually happens is the Congress tends to swing more right during a democratic administration. Our politics is like a pendulum.

People on the far left tend to forget that a large segment of "the people" are on the far right. "Power to the people" can swing us to the right. Admittedly, maybe lots of the people are easily deceived, but that's still the reality in politics.

Left leaning politicians often get more pressure from Congress, economics, circumstances and the public to veer right rather than veer more left. When gas prices go up, political pundits say it's bad news for Biden. Supply and demand effects oil prices. More supply brings down prices as oil fluctuates. US has some of the least expensive oil prices in the world; especially compared to Europe. US is now producing record amounts of oil during the Biden Presidency; or I would more likely say, "in spite of the Biden Presidency."

How the masses of people live our lives as citizens, consumers and voters can support either left or right leaning economic circumstances and politics.

Is it better for the environment to keep an old car or buy a new electric car?

There is a lot of misinformation circulating critical of electric cars. At the same time, there are some valid things to consider related to electric cars and transportation.

Considering how much driving one expects to do in their future, there is a breakeven point as to whether it's less consumptive to keep an old car versus buying a new car.

Not using a car at all, seems best to me. On the other hand, I would guess that buying a new electric car is far better, for the environment, than buying a new gas car, if one is buying a new car.

People might forget that the battery is only one part of the car and I think battery materials can be recyclable. The battery may not be as consumptive as some people contend, but buying a new car means more than just the battery. There is still the consumption in making a new car, be it either gas or electric.

A sign that I sometimes bring to the Friday 4-5 PM Bellingham Peace vigil.

Heat pump collection pipes could be installed alongside underground electrical wiring so one would only have to dig once to install both systems.

Some of my thoughts about heat pumps.

Heat pump collection pipes could be installed alongside underground electrical wiring so one would only have to dig once to install both systems. One trench could serve for both the underground wiring and the "ground to heat pump" collection pipes. One could think about heat pump possibilities when installing underground wiring.

Beyond the ground is the idea of heat transfer from moving water; such as seawater in a video I saw about Denmark.

I would guess moving water is even more efficient than the ground since the ground is insulating so heat transfer from the ground is slower. Moving water always brings new warm water to the system for heat transfer.

I think most heat pumps, in homes and small buildings of USA, are air to air systems. These systems bring moving air to the system for heat transfer. Similar to water, it's moving, but during winter, air can be much colder than most bodies of water so the heating is less efficient.

Still air to air systems are less expensive to install than ground pipe, or water based systems so that's why they are more common. Here's one more thought.

As more of Bellingham installs heat pumps, people are likely to opt for air conditioning since it's easy to include with a heat pump system. This might mean more load on the electrical grid, during summer months in Bellingham, as more people will have air conditioning that didn't have it before.

For summer air conditioning, solar is a good fit as during sunny hot days, solar is producing power closer to the times when air conditioning is needed.

I like just contemplating about things in my mind though, admittedly, I'm not an expert at anything.

Feuding fundamentalists.

It seems like a lot of wars are related to fundamentalist and intolerant interpretations of religion. Religion can be open minded and tolerant as well, but that's the more "liberal" interpretation of religion.

Having said that, I am glad that the Iron shields worked to stop those missiles and drones, from Iran, before they blew up civilians. Israel has also taken a turn toward more conservatism with the current prime minister which has worried me, but technology that defensively prevents killing is good; at least from what I gather in the news. Admittedly I only see part of the story, of course.

Natural gas is often still a backup for alternative energy.

Some folks say that solar power is not that good on the grid since it's hard to store for when the sun isn't shining. Batteries are a bit difficult, but on the grid natural gas is often used as a backup.

Yes, natural gas isn't necessarily evil. It's often used as a backup for solar and wind farms when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing.

We are using at least less fossil fuels when the sun is shining. Natural gas is often used as a backup fuel and of course people still are burning lots of fossil fuels driving cars, heating homes and using electricity, these days, anyway.

Here in the northwest, hydropower is a good backup to green energy as well and batteries are getting better.

For protecting the environment, is it worth buying a new car just to go electric?

Supposedly the liberal side of politics says buying an electric car is better for environment while some of the conservative side points out the manufacturing cost of a new car.

One of my mostly liberal friends plans to keep his old hybrid, a Prius, instead of buying a new electric as he only drives a few miles each year. For him, buying a new car might not be worth the impact as he doesn't drive that much. He usually prefers walking for most of his errands.

There is probably a breakeven point on what the best choice is dependent on expected number of miles driven. There could be common ground between liberals and conservatives.

I'm remembering, early on in the Obama Presidency, the program called "Cash for Clunkers." That was to encourage folks to take their old inefficient cars off the road for newer more fuel efficient models.

Selling more cars was good for the auto industry and back then the auto industry, along with it's workers, were in trouble. Chrysler and GM were close to bankruptcy along with many financial institutions during the 2007-08 financial panic. Obama's presidency was born into that panic which was happening at the end of the Bush Presidency. The auto industry, workers and a lot of banks were put back on their feet.

Right to life hypocrisy.

Trump says some migrants are "not people."

That coming from the presumed leader of a party that claims to uphold the sanctity of all human life.

About his warning of "bloodbath," it looks like a campaign staffer is trying to imply that it's a prediction of economic problems, in US auto industry, given imported cars from Mexico. The rhetoric has become way too hostile.

Did he mean that US auto industry could be decimated? He was speaking in front of auto workers in Ohio.

Looks like he wants to cut off imports from Mexico potentially harming Mexico's economy. Then he wants to keep job seekers, from Mexico, out of the US as if he doesn't care about people's suffering.

Another news item talks about Florida's GOP Governor De Santos sending troops to the Florida Keys to keep out the possibility of helping desperate migrants if they flee Haiti.

Gee, maybe there are too many people in the world so human life just can't be held as sacred; if it's going to get in the way of our greed.

Obviously, I think there are better ways to cope with the situation than Republican ideas. More birth control is a strategy for dealing with too many children, but we, as well as the whole world, should also be able to accommodate people in better ways.

Good relations with Mexico is another strategy toward dealing with issues. More sharing of wealth is a strategy. Figuring out how to create a more sustainable world and combat human tendencies toward tribalism, religious nationalism, greed and violence is a strategy. Humans ought to do better.

Each time he puts his foot in his mouth, I hope it looses him votes.

Biden is less like a dangerous cult leader than Trump.

We had our primary vote in Washington State last Tuesday. I put in my vote for Biden even though he's the presumed winner, but figured it could add a little push toward November general election when he isn't necessarily the presumed winner.

On a local talk show, someone called describing both candidates as like ancient smoking steam engines, but he thought the Republicans were more captivated by Trump while Democrats are less captivated. He was thinking, maybe Biden might step aside, but I called and thought, Biden is still better without necessarily stepping aside. Biden has more modesty to remind us, hopefully, that the president isn't the whole story. Trump is more like a cult leader.

With Biden, there is more of a sense of the big picture which goes beyond just one person.

There's the team that's the administration. There's Congress. There's a lot to government at the national and local levels. Ultimately I still believe the power rests with the American people. How we vote for Congress, local leaders, the president and so forth.

How we shop drives the power of markets and is a big part of shaping what pencils out for business. How we participate in our communities, how we treat one another and how we treat the environment is mostly what determines the fate of our country. Yes, I am still kind of an idealist as opposed to being totally cynical.

November's vote may be a test of Washington State's resolve to address it's carbon emissions.

Low gas prices and reducing carbon emissions are contradictory goals.

In November, there will be an initiative, on Washington State ballots, to repeal the cap and trade system that was passed by the legislature. Cap and trade has been accused, in the media, of making gasoline more expensive, in Washington, than surrounding states. November's vote may be a test of our state's resolve to address it's carbon emissions.

I tend to favor a simple carbon tax instead of cap and trade, but cap and trade is better than nothing.

Carbon taxing does tend to be regressive taxing, but my solution to that problem is to try and reduce dependency on automobiles for transportation. Public transit is more efficient, though admittedly not available in many areas. Public transit is subsidized by taxes and it is something that the cap and trade, or tax revenue could go to.

Using public transit also reduces the need for another big expense with automobiles; the rising cost of car insurance. I'm still amazed that the bus fare to Mount Vernon, from Bellingham, is only $2 general, $1 senior on the County Connector buses.

Growth versus limits for protecting the environment.

Ever since my childhood in the 1960s, I have thought that we are living in a world where population and economic growth keeps bumping into the limits imposed by concern for protecting the environment.

This seems to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest defining issue of modern times.

Should Ukraine try negotiation as Pope Francis recently suggested?

It's hard to know what the best strategy is for dealing with anger and violence in the world. Pope Francis has suggested Ukraine should strive to negotiate, versus continuing to fight to the bitter end. Others feel that this would be like the attempts at appeasement with the Nazis before World War II.

No one knows how history will judge any strategy tried. What will be the outcome? There are too many variables to predict. Violence and I also put most anger into the category of unfortunate aspects of humanity.

Some will say peace is the best strategy, but what if one is attacked? Is fighting back a better strategy to protect one's safety? What if one is the victim of violent crime or warfare?

Sometimes it might be better to fight back. Our officers of the peace; police, do usually have to carry guns. These aren't easy questions to answer.

Yes, striving toward non violence could be appeasement, who knows. Hindsight is better than foresight. We can look back on World War II and draw analogies to how that turned out. There's still some debate over what the best strategy would have been for dealing with that situation. Going forward it's even harder to know.

I think sometimes one does have to use force. On the other hand, maybe Ukraine should try and negotiate a peace short of trying to take back all the occupied territories; such as Crimea; for now at least. In the long run things could change for the better in Russia. At some point there will be a post Putin era, but who knows what the future will bring.

I don't have an ideal answer to these questions. I think our human propensity to violence creates situations where there is often no good answer. I think we do have to look at ourselves and try to figure out why humans are so prone to violence and I include anger as well. These problems persist all over the world and it seems like there is more and more warfare in various parts of the world; Sudan, Haiti, Israel/Gaza to name a few places in the news.

I also have to keep reminding myself that much of the world, if not most of the world, is still at peace.

Exxon CEO blames public for failure to fix climate change.

In the news I read; Exxon CEO blames public for failure to fix climate change. It looks like something I would say. I tend to blame consumption on consumers though I realize both producers and consumers share blame.

Have oil companies exacerbated the problem, or have they just been passive suppliers for consumer demand?

A big factor, not mentioned in the articles I saw, is the role played by politics; especially the role played by the Republican Party driven by populism. Climate change denial is still very strong among the public at the grass roots level. This is capitalized on by politicians, such as Donald Trump, who oppose measures to address climate change.

This political push doesn't necessarily come from corporations, but from politicians who rally populist segments of the public. Often the rallying members of the public are less educated about science than even corporate executives who may recognize the climate problem, while being inconvenienced by it.

I'll admit one can't totally blame average individuals for fossil fuel consumption as individuals are embedded in an economy that runs on fossil fuels. Still changes can be made with things like transit planning, zoning, carbon taxes, research, subsidies and so forth to move us toward reducing carbon emissions, but there is a lot of pushback, about these needed changes from voters and the politicians they elect. Part of that could be caused by voter apathy as who votes determines who wins.

I also think part of the problem is most people don't see the big picture. There isn't consensus around a vision for how all these things need to change together ranging from consumer behavior to technology to the way our landscapes are zoned and planned.

People have to change before politics can change.

Eroding support for Biden on the left could be enough to put Trump back in the Whitehouse. I plan to vote for Biden if that's the choice in November.

Democratic politicians walk a tightrope when they get in office with much of the US electorate leaning right wing. Possibly the majority still resides in the middle or left, but politicians also have to deal with our materialistic culture as well. Policies that stand in the way of consumerism usually don't fly.

My personal life tends to be somewhat detached from mainstream culture and I do think things could be a lot different, if most people lived like me. However, politicians have to work with the general public which includes folks on the right. As for folks in the middle and left, politicians still find they have to keep the current economy, that people are familiar with, going; this current economy, fossil fuels and all.

Radical solutions get people nervous if they fear they will loose what prosperity they have, or they can't make ends meet. The changes moderate politicians propose may not be enough, but it's the best they can do given the circumstances; unless our culture really makes big changes in technology and lifestyles at the grass roots level.

Biden still much better than what looks like what's going to be the alternative again.

It seems very foolish to blame Biden for the excesses of Netanyahu's military campaign in Gaza. Maybe Biden could call for a ceasefire and threaten to withhold military aid, but I think Netanyahu would just go ahead and do what he is doing anyway.

Meanwhile, many Republicans, backed by Trump, would be more apt to fully support Netanyahu. Republicans have an aid bill, in the House, with military aid for Israel while removing aid for Ukraine.

Biden is calling for restraint in that war but our country may not have much say in what other countries do; in the short run at least. I would guess that Israel has plenty of weapons without us.

I think it's terrible what Hamas has done, but the rightwing government, in Israel, can overreact.

Meanwhile, here in this country, many American Jews and others are critical of the right wing politics within Israel. Unfortunately some on the left, in this country, are taking their anger out on Jewish people. Left wing opposition would be better directed at some of the Christian Right which is more backing of Netanyahu's politics in Israel.

In pretty much every situation, anger tends to be misdirected and does more harm than good. Anger could bring Trump back to the Whitehouse.

Some Republicans want a more draconian bill than the compromise.

According to many Democrats, Republicans, in the House, sank the bipartisan border bill so Trump could use border problems as campaign talking points.

Republicans have a different take. They will say the border bill was sank because it wasn't tight enough. I would replace the word tight with draconian. Many Republicans want to, basically, close the border and send folks seeking asylum back to their dangerous countries of origin while turning a blind eye on human suffering.

Many Republicans would wish to round up undocumented folks to deport them, or place them in concentration camps. They advocate more draconian policies.

It is true that growing population and the worldwide migration crisis does overwhelm existing infrastructure in the countries that people are trying to migrate to. This situation does tend to fuel right wing politics around the world, including here in USA.

Instead of waiting 30 more years for high speed rail, lets improve regular speed rail and bus service.

I've read a sponsored link from Microsoft and Seattle Times advocating high speed rail between Vancouver, BC and Portland, OR. It says trains could be running by 2050; possibly too late to benefit me in this lifetime; maybe if there's reincarnation.

Meanwhile, if speed wasn't such a prerequisite, we can already go to Mount Vernon, from Bellingham for $2 on the County Connector bus that runs quite frequently. We can go on to Everett, via County Connector and then connect to many destinations in Seattle area.

We could use more frequent train service, besides only one per day, going from Seattle to Spokane that gets into Spokane around 2 am. More train service to Spokane could be provided within the next few years as rail lines already exist.

Train service could be brought back from Seattle to Yakima and Tri Cities on already existing rails.

We could use more frequent rail service between Bellingham and Seattle, but much of that route is only single track and right of way is congested. Meanwhile Amtrak is running electric buses, on I-5, for more service between Bellingham and Seattle, so I hear. The lower carbon future could be closer than we think.

Maybe we could even do both, but the high speed rail would need new right of way and so forth. Stuff that could take decades to finance and do.

Below: A double track line over Stampede Pass near I-90, east of Seattle, that's not super busy. Could do more to link Seattle to points east.

Without compromise, government becomes one party dictatorship.

It seems to me that logical thinking would imply that legislation has to be a compromise. The other alternative is one party dictatorial rule.

Newt Gingrich, recently wrote that the Republicans should not deal with the Democrats at all. He thinks they should just deal with the American people. Problem with his logic is that the American people are divided as well. There are at least as many hard core liberals as hard core conservatives.

I think most people are more in the middle with almost equal numbers of minority opinion on either the extreme right or the extreme left. That means that if government comes from either extreme right or extreme left it must become a one party dictatorship. Otherwise it does have to be somewhat of a compromise.

Compromise tends to maintain the status quo, which, I know, some folks feel is unsustainable. Folks on the left might feel it's unsustainable due to climate change, for instance. On the right, folks feel it's unsustainable due to the growing federal debt or increasing numbers of folks immigrating to USA.

Still, the status quo is what supports the lifestyles of most people. Revolutionary, or catastrophic change would be more like a dictatorship.

Incremental change and at least some spirit of compromise seems to be what works best.

Biden is only slightly older than Trump, but Biden has better policies and a better team behind him.

Both Biden and Trump are up there in the years and subject to gaffs. Who isn't subject to gaffs? It looks like the choice will be between Biden and Trump again and I agree with Biden's policies more.

In Biden's case, he has a better team behind him; including Democrats in Congress.

If you really want a clown show, besides Trump himself, just look at Republicans in the US House of Representatives.

Some thoughts about various grocery shopping experiences in Bellingham and beyond.

If more people rode bicycles, it would look different than this. In the background, the serine view of mountains in Canada.

Recent news, in Bellingham, that Bellingham Food Coop employees have voted in favor of unionizing brings up some of my thinking about the grocery business.

Coops are a different structure than corporations, but all businesses are effected by similar economics. Large corporations often offer lower price due to the reality called "economy of scale." I still go to the Downtown Food Coop due to other factors besides just the lowest price which is often associated with economy of scale. Other virtues, such as being in a location safely accessible by bicycle matters to me and the price difference doesn't seem that much.

I get ready to eat salads at the in store Coop deli. There, I often find folks I know who share good conversation.

Large outfits, such as Fred Myer, owned by Kroger, or Winco, said to be owned by it's employees, have economy of scale and are said to offer low prices. I've almost never set foot in Winco, due to it's unfriendly location for bicycling. That whole area is kind of a traffic nightmare.

There is also a branch of the Coop in that part of town, but I usually go to the downtown Coop. The northside Coop isn't as convenient for me, but it's location is still better than Winco, traffic wise, in my opinion.

Pictured above is the Costco which is popular among progressives, but also lots of cars. One needs to have a Costco membership that I haven't gotten. Being single and living in a studio apartment, I don't need pallot loads of toilet paper.

Whether it's a corporation, or not, economy of scale relates mostly to numbers and size. Corporations aren't necessarily worse, in my opinion, than other arrangements. It's mostly about the people who are there and the overall experience.

From what I read, the Coop management has been okay with the decision of employees to unionize. Another workplace, Starbucks, is also in the news as more resistant to it's employee union efforts.

From what I gather, Starbucks started out as a small alternative favored by progressive minded folks in Seattle, but it grew into being a big corporation. I often think it's not so much the structure of the organization that matters. To me it's more about the people who are there and how they are running things.

It's also about the values we all have; what matters most? Is it traffic nightmare or bicycle / pedestrian access. Friendly conversation or the absolute lowest price.

With rent being my biggest expense each month, I may not notice saving a few cents on price. I save more money by just not owning a car.

The virtues, I value, are not always things brought by economy of scale, but I understand some of that economics and that's part of the reason why I think, just getting rid of corporations will not solve all our problems. That's just the structure of the organizations, but the way we all live and what we value matters the most.

Too many people can be a cause for dread, or a cause for celebration.

Pictured is a climate awareness event I went to at Peace Arch Park on the US Canadian border a few years back.
What one does, when waiting in line, can determine whether there are too many people or not.

One time as I was at the US border crossing and the line was long. I thought, "oh no, a long boring wait," but then someone, in line, saw my bicycle helmet and ask where I'd ridden from. We got into a very nice conversation. It wasn't cars, but pedestrians waiting inside the customs building.

Pretty soon, almost too soon, the wait was over and the conversation ended as we went our separate ways.