Monochromatic

Someone hasn't been paying attention until recently, it seems.

The fact that this bumper sticker is in black and white is, of course, quite intentional. It's intended to represent the starkness of the perceived divide and the stakes involved. Which made it feel theatrical to me. Of course there are differences in moral thought that manifest themselves through politics. The fight for same-sex marriage should have made that much abundantly clear. But someone suddenly finds themselves on the disadvantaged side of the politics of it all, and so they go out and buy a bumper sticker. Just to let people know how upset they are.

There have always been differences in how people viewed morality in the United States. The question has been how willing they were to conclude that the rightness of their thought gave them the right to impose their moral sentiments on other people (presuming, of course, that they see it as an imposition). And that's been a variable. Whether or not the value of that variable is high enough to erupt in widespread violence is doubtful, even though there are always people who feel that the best way to bend the arc of history towards justice is to soften it with blood. Sometimes their own, but generally that of other people. As a former co-worker of mine put it: "If you're not willing to force other people to do what you think is right, I question your commitment to your ethics."

In that sense, I would think that we're fortunate that for much of our history, many people's commitment to their ethics has been lax. Because the alternative rarely ends well for anyone, really.

Although perhaps I should say that people in general are fortunate in that those people who disagree with them tend to be more committed to their interests than their ethics. And people's interests tend to include work with, or at least not working against, people near them.

And that's really the concern one would have about the sentiment expressed on this bumper sticker; that someone is telegraphing that they're close to deciding that cooperation with those with whom they disagree is no longer in their interests, because the stakes are rising, and the costs of cooperation along with them.

People have been making noises about things reaching a tipping point for some time now, some out of fear and others to make those they disagree with afraid. But people deciding that fighting is better than cooperating is a very real risk, and the more that people on different sides of the disconnect feel that they aren't receiving what they're entitled to, and those other people are to blame, the greater the chance of things going sideways rises.

Allowance

In the aftermath of the Independence Day flooding in south-central Texas, I encountered a question online that I wasn't expecting, although perhaps I should have, given its age and ubiquity: "Why would God allow this to happen?" It was asked in the context of Camp Mystic, the Christian summer camp for girls, but could just as easily apply to the whole event.

I suppose that people will trot out the usual answers, such as the sinfulness of mankind and the need to have bad things happen in order to appreciate the good, but a different answer (or perhaps retort) occurred to me while considering the question: "What part of 'Flash Flood Alley' is difficult to understand?"

And I realized that some variation on this is likely a good response to the question in a lot of instances. A lot of places that are some combination of desirable, useful and/or inexpensive have some hazard associated with them. I mean, were it not for the fact that I live in an area cluttered with trees and other obstructions, I'd have line-of-sight to an active volcano, one that's considered one of the world's most dangerous. Were it to erupt, things in this area would go downhill in a remarkable hurry. And "What part of 'active volcano' is difficult to understand?" would be a very valid question.

While in a sense, the question "Why would God allow this to happen?" is about the seeming inactivity of the Abrahamic god in the face of tragedy (I wonder of Hinduism or Shinto ask a version of the question.), it strikes me that it's also about the idea that humans, especially worshipers, are important enough that the laws of nature (and/or human behavior) should be altered in their favor, regardless of any other considerations, including intentional or inadvertent risk-taking. The Guadalupe River watershed isn't consistently dangerous, otherwise no-one would live there (I would think, anyway), but like any number of other places (say Tornado Alley), it's not  "safe" in the sense that one can be reasonably assured that Mother Nature won't come knocking in a blind rage. And, to some degree or another, therefore, living in these places comes with the assumption of a certain amount of risk. And, comparatively rarely, that risk goes south in a big way, at least for some segment of the population. And sometimes with human help; our built environment, especially here in the United States, can be just as much a hazard as whatever natural process is in play when a disaster occurs.

There are good reasons to live and/or work in places where it's not clear that the Earth really wants anyone to be. But it's worthwhile to understand when that's what's happening. Because the reasons for not putting the resources into being well-adapted to the specific locale are often less good. Remember that I included "inexpensive" as a potential characteristic of hazardous locations. And asking why people don't look after their own well-being is likely a more fruitful line of inquiry than wondering why the Universe doesn't structure things so they don't have to.

America Third

So it seems that Elon Musk has decided that, rather than throw his hat in with the Libertarian Party, to start his own, the "America Party." Because he asked his followers on X if there should be a party "that actually represents the 80% in the middle." I suspect that Mr. Musk understands about as much concerning political polling as he does branding. But in any event, the poll said, in effect, "go for it," so here we are.

While I have nothing against new political parties in the United States, given how badly dysfunctional the Democratic-Republican party duopoloy have become, I don't fancy the chances of this "America Party" actually getting anywhere. Mainly because this really comes across as Mr. Musk simply being random again. He hasn't even come up with a platform yet. The precepts of:

• Reduce debt, responsible spending only
• Modernize military with AI/robotics
• Pro tech, accelerate to win in AI
• Less regulation across board, but especially in energy
• Free speech 
• Pro natalist
• Centrist policies everywhere else

Were proposed by someone on X, and Musk simply showed some enthusiasm for them. Which may turn out to be a good thing; these planks seem much more like Mr. Musk's personal eccentricities than an appeal to the general public from the center outwards. Were Mr. Musk inclined to retain one, a political consultant could help him come up with something better.

But it remains to be seen how effective it would be. Non-partisan voters are each non-partisan in their own way, and Elon Musk doesn't come across the the sort of person who would inspire large numbers of people to come out and vote for him and his other candidates. And even if he can, he's more likely to simply upset the apple cart than ride wave to real political influence, since the chances his America Party could win a majority in any chamber of Congress are vanishingly small.

As much as I understand his decision not to go with the Libertarian Party, he would likely be better as a financier and/or fundraiser than an actual candidate. The America Party is going to have to come across as something more than simply a pet project of Mr. Musk's, and if he's it's only visible face, it won't be able to manage that.

Localized

The goal had been simply to head down to Alki and take some pictures of downtown Seattle from there. It's not the most interesting place in the world to take pictures from, and I have quite a lot of them, but I did it anyway, with a mind towards including in a photograph in the rather uninspired idea I'd had for today's post.

Instead, I came across this:

Maybe it's just because I didn't pay any attention, but I never noticed this sort of thing when I lived in Chicago. And to be sure, they aren't everywhere in the Seattle area, but I come across them often enough that they strike me as common.

While I was taking photos of the memorial, a man came up and explained what had happened to the couple. I'd simply presumed that they'd been struck by a car while attempting to cross Harbor Ave. Despite the fact that there's a crosswalk from Luna Park, crossing the street there can feel like taking one's life in one's hands, given how people will sometimes come tearing around the curve. The reality of the case turned out to be much more grim.

As the man related the story, I started to feel that I'd been living under a rock. This had likely been a big case, if only due to how the bodies were found, and here I was, just now hearing about it. (Even true crime podcasts had picked up the story.) I'll admit to being somewhat disconnected from the news of the area, due in no small part to having ended my cable television subscription not long after the Seahawks won Super Bowl XLVIII in 2014. While I often don't feel informed after watching the news, not watching it leaves me in the same state of affairs.

But realizing that I was ignorant of this also served to point out that in a lot of ways, I still don't think of the Seattle area as "home." I've spent about half my life here at this point, yet retain the feeling of being a passing visitor rather than a permanent resident, despite not really having any plans to go anywhere else any time soon. When I think of "home," it's still Chicagoland that comes to mind, despite the fact that when I'm out there, the place has changed so much that if feels like a completely different locale. (Because, honestly, it is.)

It's weird to have lived in a place for so long, and still not feel particularly connected to it in any real sense. Perhaps that is something that will change on its own. I suspect it will have to; I'm not sure what to do about it.

Musk (L-Nowhere)

While Musk continues to muse about his third party, reports have emerged that Libertarians are trying to coax him into their corner.
How successful would Musk's third party be?

The United States appears to have two broad types of "third" parties: national, and local. What it likely needs is one that can span both. To be fair, the Libertarians are trying to cover all the bases, but they don't really come across as competitive in most jurisdictions; currently, they do best in non-partisan mayoral races (of which self-identified Libertarians seem to have won about a dozen currently). It's also worth noting that the Libertarians have a legitimate claim to being the third party in American politics, despite being a very distant third, with only about 3% of the vote in 2016, which was their high-water mark.

The general gist here seems to be that the Libertarians think that with Elon Musk's finances backing them, that they could actually become competitive in elections. And that may be true, but I'm not sure that I would bet on that. Mr. Musk's recent, open, feuding with President Trump likely means that the number of votes he could siphon from the Republicans would be fairly small, there seems to be little concern that the President used Mr. Musk as a patsy in setting up the "Department of Government Efficiency," before pushing for a budget that promptly ate all of the supposed savings that DOGE imposed and then bloated the federal budget even further. Likewise, many Democrats have nothing but anger at Mr. Musk for his role in electing the President and then in taking a chainsaw to programs and initiatives that they believed in. It's entirely possible that a Musk-funded Libertarian Party picks up disaffected voters here and there, but he's likely radioactive enough that large scale defections from both parties are highly unlikely. And defections would need to be from both parties to avoid simply becoming a spoiler, and thus a target for whomever feels their electoral chances are the most damaged.

But a bigger concern might be the obvious one... finding a constituency. Under Donald Trump, Republicans have learned that small government isn't really what they want; they prefer a government that spends lavishly on their priorities and withholds from people they don't like. And Democrats, for all that they seem to be poor at governing effectively, have never met a centralized solution to a problem that they didn't like. Given the haphazard and partisan manner in which DOGE operated under Mr. Musk's direction, I can't imagine he'd be okay with the sort of Libertarianism I have some sympathy for, and the fact that they're openly courting someone that nakedly dishonest leads me to reconsider what sympathies for them I still have.

Still, the Libertarians going from 3.2% in a presidential contest to 10% would be a really impressive showing (even it comes nowhere near what Ross Perot was able to attain), and could really have an impact on American politics, especially if concentrated in otherwise competitive states. (Here in Washington, for instance, if a Libertarian ticket took it's entire 10% share from the Democrats, the Democratic candidate would still win by a comfortable margin.) So the question becomes how many bridges has Elon Musk burned, and can any of them be repaired.