Okay, maybe Tony Hinchcliffe's jokes, at Trump's Madison Square Garden rally, are just to be taken as humor. Besides the famous "island of garbage" joke, there was also the comment about "Latinos love having babies."
I can joke back and say everyone needs more birth control. I can say, "if more people were gay there might be less people."
Seems like Republicans, at least subconsciously, think there are too many people; as in too many people, from all over the world, who happen to want to come to what Ronald Regan called the "shining city on the hill."
Comedy can be cutting at events called roasts. This comedian has done some roasts.
I remember that Trump refused to even attend the annual roast that is called the "White House Correspondent Dinner." He refused to attend when he was president. What's wrong Mr. Trump?
Obama attended that dinner when he was president. He took the jokes, aimed at him, in stride as in being a good sport about it.
Tuesday, October 29, 2024
Friday, October 18, 2024
Rightwing backlash against efforts to address climate change.
Attempts to maintain status quo in our car dependent, sprawling neighborhoods fuels rightwing pushback against government's attempts to lower the carbon footprint. Increased costs for things like gasoline often do fall harder on low income people.
Being willing to accept change, in our lifestyles and neighborhood designs, could bring realization that using public transit is less expensive than expecting people to own cars.
We do need to make deeper cultural changes than just having governments pass rules to try and meet lower carbon emission goals. I still plan, however, to vote against Initiative 2117 to repeal Washington's Cap and Trade system. Maybe cap and trade wasn't the best design, but it's something to address climate change. Looking at it another way, it does fund lots of things that benefit our state, such as salmon recovery, public transit and road safety improvements.
Yes, I realize that public transit is not available in all areas or convenient enough for some people. I think it is more convenient than most people realize, however.
Transition to greener technologies tends to take time. Solar energy's rollout, for instance could end up being slower than the goals set by government mandates.
Laws that ratchet up costs, such as cap and trade's increasing limits on carbon emission credits as the years go by, are likely to keep ratcheting up the cost of fossil fuels. This will likely happen faster than our ability to make the changes we need so it's not surprising that there is pushback; from lower income people especially.
Still, it does look like the polls are in favor of keeping the cap and trade, for now, in Washington State; a fairly liberal state. Conservatism, partially driven by the wish to hang onto "status quo economic life" seems more pronounced in other parts of USA. The red states, for instance.
In the long run, we do need to accept change, at a deeper personal and cultural level, than just imposing it by government mandate. Government mandates, that inconvenience people, tend to bring rightwing pushback, however I still do vote for them, usually. They are better than nothing, but they often do get tossed out, given the mood of the nation, at the ballot box.
Being willing to accept change, in our lifestyles and neighborhood designs, could bring realization that using public transit is less expensive than expecting people to own cars.
We do need to make deeper cultural changes than just having governments pass rules to try and meet lower carbon emission goals. I still plan, however, to vote against Initiative 2117 to repeal Washington's Cap and Trade system. Maybe cap and trade wasn't the best design, but it's something to address climate change. Looking at it another way, it does fund lots of things that benefit our state, such as salmon recovery, public transit and road safety improvements.
Yes, I realize that public transit is not available in all areas or convenient enough for some people. I think it is more convenient than most people realize, however.
Laws that ratchet up costs, such as cap and trade's increasing limits on carbon emission credits as the years go by, are likely to keep ratcheting up the cost of fossil fuels. This will likely happen faster than our ability to make the changes we need so it's not surprising that there is pushback; from lower income people especially.
Still, it does look like the polls are in favor of keeping the cap and trade, for now, in Washington State; a fairly liberal state. Conservatism, partially driven by the wish to hang onto "status quo economic life" seems more pronounced in other parts of USA. The red states, for instance.
In the long run, we do need to accept change, at a deeper personal and cultural level, than just imposing it by government mandate. Government mandates, that inconvenience people, tend to bring rightwing pushback, however I still do vote for them, usually. They are better than nothing, but they often do get tossed out, given the mood of the nation, at the ballot box.
Biking memories, fear of dogs and more.
There was an open house at the Archives Building, WWU where some of the memories and posters that I have donated were on display.
I had a chance to talk with several students who took the time for in depth conversation, which I truly enjoy. Many topics were discussed comparing life on campus, today, to back in the 1970s when I was a student.
One person mentioned that her parents hadn't even been born when I was at WWU. She was impressed by how much bicycling I do as she said she finds the thought of even bicycling across campus a bit daunting in spite of her young age.
I got to thinking, after the event, that I found bicycling more daunting when I was her age as well. I was afraid (and still am afraid) of farm dogs. Dogs can be one of the biggest dangers against bicycling, but these days the dogs are more likely to be penned up or on a leash. There are now more laws controlling dog owners.
Back then, I remember dog droppings all over town, but these days, we have stricter pooper scooper laws as well.
My freshman year, in college, I didn't even have a bike. I walked instead. My bike was back at my parents house in Pullman. The following year they brought my bike over to Bellingham in my parents camper van.
I had gone on some long distance rides around Pullman going back to 7th grade, but my fear of farm dogs curtailed much of that. When I first got my bike in Bellingham, I was afraid to ride out of town due to the dogs. My only long trip was out to Larabee State Park.
I did use it in town quite a bit and got to know the layout of Bellingham better. I felt more at home, in Bellingham, after I got my bike over here. My freshman year, I felt more like a resident of Pullman who was just staying in Bellingham temporarily. After that I ended up here, but that's another long story.
My first long ride out into the county was soon after graduation from WWU when a friend named Phil Hoge, who I am still in touch with today, suggested we go out to tour some industries in the county. We toured Recomp, on Slater Road, where local garbage was incinerated and then rode out to Intalco Aluminum Works for a look from the side of the road.
It wasn't till a year or two later, in the early 1980s that I started venturing farther by myself. That was when Washington State changed the law and started allowing bicycles on the wide shoulders of I-5 in rural area. I figured there would be no dogs on I-5. I was amazed how smooth and safe the freeway shoulder felt, back then, compared to many country roads. That was back in the days of 55 mph speed limits and possibly only half as much traffic as today.
Since then, many back roads have been improved for bicycles, better shoulders and so forth plus more leash laws keeping the dogs from chasing bikes on the road.
One person mentioned that her parents hadn't even been born when I was at WWU. She was impressed by how much bicycling I do as she said she finds the thought of even bicycling across campus a bit daunting in spite of her young age.
I got to thinking, after the event, that I found bicycling more daunting when I was her age as well. I was afraid (and still am afraid) of farm dogs. Dogs can be one of the biggest dangers against bicycling, but these days the dogs are more likely to be penned up or on a leash. There are now more laws controlling dog owners.
Back then, I remember dog droppings all over town, but these days, we have stricter pooper scooper laws as well.
My freshman year, in college, I didn't even have a bike. I walked instead. My bike was back at my parents house in Pullman. The following year they brought my bike over to Bellingham in my parents camper van.
I had gone on some long distance rides around Pullman going back to 7th grade, but my fear of farm dogs curtailed much of that. When I first got my bike in Bellingham, I was afraid to ride out of town due to the dogs. My only long trip was out to Larabee State Park.
I did use it in town quite a bit and got to know the layout of Bellingham better. I felt more at home, in Bellingham, after I got my bike over here. My freshman year, I felt more like a resident of Pullman who was just staying in Bellingham temporarily. After that I ended up here, but that's another long story.
My first long ride out into the county was soon after graduation from WWU when a friend named Phil Hoge, who I am still in touch with today, suggested we go out to tour some industries in the county. We toured Recomp, on Slater Road, where local garbage was incinerated and then rode out to Intalco Aluminum Works for a look from the side of the road.
It wasn't till a year or two later, in the early 1980s that I started venturing farther by myself. That was when Washington State changed the law and started allowing bicycles on the wide shoulders of I-5 in rural area. I figured there would be no dogs on I-5. I was amazed how smooth and safe the freeway shoulder felt, back then, compared to many country roads. That was back in the days of 55 mph speed limits and possibly only half as much traffic as today.
Since then, many back roads have been improved for bicycles, better shoulders and so forth plus more leash laws keeping the dogs from chasing bikes on the road.
Sunday, October 13, 2024
Rate of inflation is back down, but bringing prices back to pre inflation levels would be deflation. Do we want that?
Overall inflation is almost back down to the around 2% modest target, but some people are still not satisfied. Prices are still higher now than they were before the last period of inflation started.
I guess we could try and bring prices down to below current levels. That's deflation. Do people really want deflation?
Many economists say that deflation should be avoided as it is usually associated with recession and depression. Is that what people secretly want? Do they want a collapse of the economy? Maybe people have a secret desire for less consumption and materialism. Is there a secret desire for less emphasis on wealth and money?
Falling home values might make housing cheaper, but it would put some folks "upside down" in their home; that is if they owe a mortgage.
If Trump returns to the White House, I think it's likely that the following divisiveness and instability could cause the economy to go into a tailspin. That's why a lot of money does seem to be on the side of Kamala Harris. Apparently Harris does lead in campaign contributions. It's what could be called "blue state money" as blue states do tend to be more successful economically.
I think the innovation of liberal culture tends to be good for prosperity and resilience in modern times given the "information / high tech economy." It's no longer your grandfather's economy. Personally, I still feel that a lifestyle of less consumption is desirable and better for the natural environment and I also feel that we can make personal choices toward less consumption with Harris as president.
With Trump as president, personal choices toward less consumptive lifestyles would still be possible, but the increased instability and hatred toward one another, that a Trump Presidency is likely to stir up, would be undesirable for many reasons. Economic collapse, a likely scenario under Trump, could force people into less consumption, but certain scenarios of being forced into economic turmoil would not be pretty. On the other hand, given more likely social stability and status quo under Harris, we could still make the personal choices toward more responsible lifestyles; such as in evolution versus revolution.
Many economists say that deflation should be avoided as it is usually associated with recession and depression. Is that what people secretly want? Do they want a collapse of the economy? Maybe people have a secret desire for less consumption and materialism. Is there a secret desire for less emphasis on wealth and money?
Falling home values might make housing cheaper, but it would put some folks "upside down" in their home; that is if they owe a mortgage.
If Trump returns to the White House, I think it's likely that the following divisiveness and instability could cause the economy to go into a tailspin. That's why a lot of money does seem to be on the side of Kamala Harris. Apparently Harris does lead in campaign contributions. It's what could be called "blue state money" as blue states do tend to be more successful economically.
I think the innovation of liberal culture tends to be good for prosperity and resilience in modern times given the "information / high tech economy." It's no longer your grandfather's economy. Personally, I still feel that a lifestyle of less consumption is desirable and better for the natural environment and I also feel that we can make personal choices toward less consumption with Harris as president.
With Trump as president, personal choices toward less consumptive lifestyles would still be possible, but the increased instability and hatred toward one another, that a Trump Presidency is likely to stir up, would be undesirable for many reasons. Economic collapse, a likely scenario under Trump, could force people into less consumption, but certain scenarios of being forced into economic turmoil would not be pretty. On the other hand, given more likely social stability and status quo under Harris, we could still make the personal choices toward more responsible lifestyles; such as in evolution versus revolution.
Monday, October 07, 2024
Maybe the vice presidential candidates should be the presidential candidates.
Posted on Facebook October 2 2024.
I listened to part of last night's vice presidential debate. It seemed much more civil than the presidential debate and was about important issues.
Ironically, the presidential debate was more about grandstanding and gotcha points. Harris must have been trying to keep up, a bit, with Trump's grandstanding in the competition for votes.
I'm for Harris / Waltz. It is ironic, however that the vice presidential debate was more useful from a thinking standpoint. Maybe the vice presidential candidates should be the presidential candidates.
Having Trump on the stage kind of sets the tone like the elephant in the room.
Speaking of elephant (Republican Party) Vance seemed fairly civil this time; more like the somewhat more civil Republican Party of George W. Bush. Less talk, from Vance, of single, childless cat ladies and no one brought up immigrants eating people's pets.
I listened to part of last night's vice presidential debate. It seemed much more civil than the presidential debate and was about important issues.
Ironically, the presidential debate was more about grandstanding and gotcha points. Harris must have been trying to keep up, a bit, with Trump's grandstanding in the competition for votes.
I'm for Harris / Waltz. It is ironic, however that the vice presidential debate was more useful from a thinking standpoint. Maybe the vice presidential candidates should be the presidential candidates.
Having Trump on the stage kind of sets the tone like the elephant in the room.
Speaking of elephant (Republican Party) Vance seemed fairly civil this time; more like the somewhat more civil Republican Party of George W. Bush. Less talk, from Vance, of single, childless cat ladies and no one brought up immigrants eating people's pets.
I'm remembering Carter Presidency as Carter soon turns 100.
Posted on Facebook Sept. 29 2024.
Happy Birthday to former President Jimmy Carter who I hear turns 100 on Tuesday October 1.
President during my college years and a bit beyond. 1977-1981.
I remember him for advocating less energy consumption to help us get through the energy crisis, back then. We were running out of easy to drill liquid petroleum. One of his famous statements was how dependent we were on a thin line of oil tankers stretching halfway around the world.
He advocated alternative energy and had solar panels installed at the White House. He also advocated American energy independence with something called the Carter Synfuels Program; basically mining shale and cooking it to squeeze out the last drops of American oil. Coal production and gasification was also seen as a solution as USA had plenty of coal reserves.
Since then, new technology has made getting oil out of shale much easier than thought back then. USA is now basically energy independent, but another problem has cropped up; climate change.
Solar, wind and other alternative technologies have significantly improved since those years bringing the price of alternative energy down.
I would like us to see a return to Carter's type of advocacy for conservation and modification of consumptive lifestyles plus continued advancement of the cleaner technologies.
Carter was also noted as an advocate for international human rights with his UN ambassador, Andrew Young, a big figure in that era of hope.
At some point Andrew did have to leave that post, but I forgot the details.
On gay rights, that era could be thought of as ancient history compared to the recent progress made in USA on that topic.
I remember a ground breaking meeting between top White House staff and a group called the National Gay Taskforce. The president wasn't at that meeting, but it was seen as a big step forward at that time. Gay rights was gaining ground at the grass roots level and that was possibly the first recognition at the White House.
Carter's presidency was buffeted many unfortunate events beyond his control such as the Iranian hostage crisis and the Three Mile Island nuclear power incident.
Toward the end of his presidency, there was some feeling that things were floundering. In 1980 Ronald Regan ran against Carter and won the presidency. Tax cuts were popular and gradually things changed with income and wealth inequality now much higher, in USA, than before. Reagan symbolically removed the solar panels from the White House.
Happy Birthday to former President Jimmy Carter who I hear turns 100 on Tuesday October 1.
President during my college years and a bit beyond. 1977-1981.
I remember him for advocating less energy consumption to help us get through the energy crisis, back then. We were running out of easy to drill liquid petroleum. One of his famous statements was how dependent we were on a thin line of oil tankers stretching halfway around the world.
He advocated alternative energy and had solar panels installed at the White House. He also advocated American energy independence with something called the Carter Synfuels Program; basically mining shale and cooking it to squeeze out the last drops of American oil. Coal production and gasification was also seen as a solution as USA had plenty of coal reserves.
Since then, new technology has made getting oil out of shale much easier than thought back then. USA is now basically energy independent, but another problem has cropped up; climate change.
Solar, wind and other alternative technologies have significantly improved since those years bringing the price of alternative energy down.
I would like us to see a return to Carter's type of advocacy for conservation and modification of consumptive lifestyles plus continued advancement of the cleaner technologies.
Carter was also noted as an advocate for international human rights with his UN ambassador, Andrew Young, a big figure in that era of hope.
At some point Andrew did have to leave that post, but I forgot the details.
On gay rights, that era could be thought of as ancient history compared to the recent progress made in USA on that topic.
I remember a ground breaking meeting between top White House staff and a group called the National Gay Taskforce. The president wasn't at that meeting, but it was seen as a big step forward at that time. Gay rights was gaining ground at the grass roots level and that was possibly the first recognition at the White House.
Carter's presidency was buffeted many unfortunate events beyond his control such as the Iranian hostage crisis and the Three Mile Island nuclear power incident.
Toward the end of his presidency, there was some feeling that things were floundering. In 1980 Ronald Regan ran against Carter and won the presidency. Tax cuts were popular and gradually things changed with income and wealth inequality now much higher, in USA, than before. Reagan symbolically removed the solar panels from the White House.
I'm curious how the meeting between Trump and Zelensky turned out?
Posted on Facebook Sept. 28 2024.
I'm curious how the meeting between former President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky turned out. I haven't seen any results from meeting in the news yet, but I have been out on the McKenzie River Trail anyway. Forgot to bring my radio and I was likely out of cell coverage much of the way if I'd wanted to look at my phone instead of dodging tree roots across the trail.
Both presidents have nearly opposite strategies. Trump would deal and likely give land, such as Crimea to Russia. Zelensky would fight until every acre is returned to Ukraine. I wonder how that meeting went?
I'm curious how the meeting between former President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky turned out. I haven't seen any results from meeting in the news yet, but I have been out on the McKenzie River Trail anyway. Forgot to bring my radio and I was likely out of cell coverage much of the way if I'd wanted to look at my phone instead of dodging tree roots across the trail.
Both presidents have nearly opposite strategies. Trump would deal and likely give land, such as Crimea to Russia. Zelensky would fight until every acre is returned to Ukraine. I wonder how that meeting went?
Friday, September 13, 2024
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?
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?
Thursday, September 12, 2024
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.
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.
Friday, August 30, 2024
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.
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.
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.
Monday, August 05, 2024
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.
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.
Saturday, August 03, 2024
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 31, 2024
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, July 20, 2024
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.
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.
Friday, July 19, 2024
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.
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.
Thursday, July 04, 2024
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 02, 2024
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.
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.
Sunday, June 30, 2024
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, June 29, 2024
Link to my most recent bike tour photos on Flickr.
Friday, June 28, 2024
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)