weekend!
Quit work at 3pm, watching soccer and playing with toys. Wishing I were running more often already! Mad at myself for skipping it this morning, but I did have mucho fun with B last night. And I did go on a walk instead. I can either run or walk tomorrow morning before I go pick him up for our day in Silver Spring, ditto Sunday, ditto Monday, etc.
Didn't catch up with work stuff as much as I'd hoped, because my morning meeting ran way way overtime, but there's always Sunday, and next week.
-----
I'm proceeding with this nonfiction book about blowing up pipelines. I'm also doing some side reading about "eco-terrorism" in the US, related legal issues, and its prevalence.
One issue I have with this book is how the author sets up as his main complaint --> that there is practically no violence deployed to fight climate change. He's wrong, there has been violence, some so-called eco-terrorism, even in the US. Perhaps our most famous home-grown example is the Unabomber. Then, in the second half of the book the author details some light-scale property violence that his own group has committed in Sweden, such as letting the air out of SUV tires. So the basic premise of his book makes no sense. Eco-terrorism does, in fact, exist. Already.
Nevertheless, he's baffled by how little violence is deployed by climate activists, compared to many other causes throughout history. His basic complaint is, "Why ain't there more violence about this huge existential issue?"
I've got my answer. I think it is the same theme I've been harping on for a while now. Too many of us have an economic self-interest in keeping the fossil fuel extravaganza going. People of all classes, races, nationalities, ideologies. As I've shown via simple math, we'd all need to cut our pre-tax standard of living to $2,400/person/year to fix the problem.
A lot of people do wish somebody would do something to fix the climate, but hardly any of us demand what it would take to actually solve the problem, because it would mean the worst economic depression in modern history, by far. It would mean even the poorest among us would need to cut their own standard of living.
-----
So far this year I've cut $100/month from my porn spending, but this leaves me with only two porn services now. I'm interested in joining another ... but I'm also trying to hold off on spending until the debt ceiling and budget are resolved, in case T and I will have to miss some paychecks.
I'm thinking of delaying my new Global Green Communism giving until I know my paychecks are safe for a while. I'll catch up immediately later, because I'm committed to playing this game at least until I retire, but I'm concerned about cash flow right now.
One cause I'm interested in adding, is helping families of transgender children to move to friendlier states or countries. Trans refugees are real in the US now, as state after state bans gender-affirming care for minors. I don't think banning is the right answer, I think smart regulation is the answer to screen out individuals who aren't ready for medicines or surgery yet, or individuals who have bigger problems to fix first. Blanket bans on care are based on prejudice. If you have concerns about whether children are receiving appropriate care, the answer is oversight, not bans.
Well, I'm gonna wait on adding new porn and new charities until I know T and I will be getting regular paychecks for the foreseeable future. Right now everything is up in the air as Democrats play chicken with Republicans.
-----
Damn it, I did join a third porn service LOL. But $15/month! Less than either of those I canceled! Net savings $85/month!
Didn't catch up with work stuff as much as I'd hoped, because my morning meeting ran way way overtime, but there's always Sunday, and next week.
-----
I'm proceeding with this nonfiction book about blowing up pipelines. I'm also doing some side reading about "eco-terrorism" in the US, related legal issues, and its prevalence.
One issue I have with this book is how the author sets up as his main complaint --> that there is practically no violence deployed to fight climate change. He's wrong, there has been violence, some so-called eco-terrorism, even in the US. Perhaps our most famous home-grown example is the Unabomber. Then, in the second half of the book the author details some light-scale property violence that his own group has committed in Sweden, such as letting the air out of SUV tires. So the basic premise of his book makes no sense. Eco-terrorism does, in fact, exist. Already.
Nevertheless, he's baffled by how little violence is deployed by climate activists, compared to many other causes throughout history. His basic complaint is, "Why ain't there more violence about this huge existential issue?"
I've got my answer. I think it is the same theme I've been harping on for a while now. Too many of us have an economic self-interest in keeping the fossil fuel extravaganza going. People of all classes, races, nationalities, ideologies. As I've shown via simple math, we'd all need to cut our pre-tax standard of living to $2,400/person/year to fix the problem.
A lot of people do wish somebody would do something to fix the climate, but hardly any of us demand what it would take to actually solve the problem, because it would mean the worst economic depression in modern history, by far. It would mean even the poorest among us would need to cut their own standard of living.
-----
So far this year I've cut $100/month from my porn spending, but this leaves me with only two porn services now. I'm interested in joining another ... but I'm also trying to hold off on spending until the debt ceiling and budget are resolved, in case T and I will have to miss some paychecks.
I'm thinking of delaying my new Global Green Communism giving until I know my paychecks are safe for a while. I'll catch up immediately later, because I'm committed to playing this game at least until I retire, but I'm concerned about cash flow right now.
One cause I'm interested in adding, is helping families of transgender children to move to friendlier states or countries. Trans refugees are real in the US now, as state after state bans gender-affirming care for minors. I don't think banning is the right answer, I think smart regulation is the answer to screen out individuals who aren't ready for medicines or surgery yet, or individuals who have bigger problems to fix first. Blanket bans on care are based on prejudice. If you have concerns about whether children are receiving appropriate care, the answer is oversight, not bans.
Well, I'm gonna wait on adding new porn and new charities until I know T and I will be getting regular paychecks for the foreseeable future. Right now everything is up in the air as Democrats play chicken with Republicans.
-----
Damn it, I did join a third porn service LOL. But $15/month! Less than either of those I canceled! Net savings $85/month!