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.