Thanks to Rosemary W!


From Savingplaces.org: While it’s not the oldest automobile highway in the United States, Route 66—a National Treasure of the National Trust—is likely the most enduring highway in America’s public consciousness. “The Mother Road,” as it’s often called, represents a significant moment in history that continues to define the nation’s identity: the rise of the automobile and its implications of freedom, mobility, and a uniquely American story.
Route 66 was officially commissioned in 1926 as part of America’s first federal highway system, but the hodge-podge of routes and roads it comprised had existed long before mass-produced automobiles. The U.S. Congress commissioned a transcontinental railroad in 1853, which became a network of wagon trails crossing the country from east to west. In 1857, Lt. Edward Fitzgerald Beale created another route between New Mexico and California that thousands of migrants later used to travel to the Golden Coast.
Some parts of the road follow even earlier migration routes such as the Trail of Tears, formed when 15,000-16,000 Cherokee people were forcibly removed from their homelands in the southern Appalachians in 1838. An estimated 3,000-4,000 people died as a result of the experience.

When the number of registered vehicles in the United States jumped from 450,000 in 1910 to 8 million in 1920, motorists demanded improved highways to travel across the country. Entrepreneur Cyrus Avery of Tulsa, Oklahoma, promoted the idea of an interregional link between Chicago and Los Angeles, where Route 66 runs today. The highway would be the shortest year-round route between the Midwest and the Pacific Coast, traveling through eight states: Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. (read on to see some more great pics)
Ed note: I asked our cab driver in San Diego, a native of Indiana, where he lived. The quick answer – Tijuana. “I commute every day and am saving an amazing amount of money. My 2 bedroom apartment in a gated community is only $600/month and I get all the work on my car nearby.” He went on to say that more than 30,000 Americans live in Tijuana commuting across the border daily to their jobs in San Diego. Laughingly he said, “Many of these are undocumented Americans living in Mexico – it’s pretty lax here.”
There is an interesting contrast tonight with both Trump and O’Rourke speaking about the border issues – only a mile apart at the Mexican border. I hope to get clips of their talks to post here. Below is a recent posting
Kim’s snowman sent in by Alice and Joe W

Thanks to Tom G for sending this in!
From the NYT: “Ogden Nash described winter as “the season to be young, catching snowflakes on your tongue.” Sure, snow days are fun for children, but for drivers, wintry weather is a hazard.
The problem is that driver education classes typically gloss over what makes winter driving different and how to avoid and handle skids, said Tim O’Neil, the founder of Team O’Neil, a rally-driving school in Dalton, N.H., that also teaches winter driving.
That’s why even people who have been driving for decades can make crucial mistakes on snowy roads, said Mark Cox, the director of the Bridgestone Winter Driving School in Steamboat Springs, Colo.
“We see a lot of people from all over the country who have grown up in the Snow Belt and have years and years of driving experience and in reality have just been lucky because their technique leaves a lot to be desired,” Mr. Cox said.
The biggest problem is speed, and not knowing it will take much longer to stop, experts say. Here’s some other advice to avoid slip-sliding away.
The amount of grip available on snow can change sharply depending on the temperatures, said James H. Lever, a researcher at the Army’s Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, N.H.
Warm snow is weaker and gives way more easily, so tires have a harder time getting a good grip, he said.
“As temperatures warm up, it gets more slippery. It is a big effect,” he said. For example, when the air is 30 degrees Fahrenheit, packed snow is about five times more slick than it is at zero degrees.
Researchers say when a tire begins to slide across the snow at higher temperatures it is more likely to melt the snow. That water then acts as a lubricant.
On dry pavement, tires have so much grip that drivers can accelerate hard, slam on the brakes and make sudden, sharp turns, Mr. O’Neil said.
But that all changes on a slippery surface.
“We have less grip in the winter. One of the things you have to do in the winter is be way smoother,” Mr. O’Neil said. Otherwise, the tires can quickly lose what little grip they have.
On dry pavement it may be possible to brake while going through a turn. On snow it is safest to slow the vehicle first and then make the turn, he said.
“It’s sort of like walking on the ice. You take smaller, little tiny steps. You don’t try to run on the ice. It’s the same idea with a car,” he said.
“A lot of people overestimate the capabilities of their vehicles, especially people driving all-wheel drive. They mash the gas pedal and the thing goes forward with all four wheels pulling and they get a false sense of confidence,” Mr. Cox said.
“The beauty of all-wheel drive is to help get you moving from a complete stop, that is where it is the best — or climbing a steep hill. But when it comes to braking and cornering, all-wheel drive doesn’t give you much or any benefit. Often they are the first ones in the ditch.”
All-season tires are a compromise, just like a houseboat, said Travis Hanson, the director of operations at Team O’Neil. “It’s not a good house, and it’s not a good boat,” he said.
Catch up and prep for the week ahead with this newsletter of the most important business insights, delivered Sundays.SIGN UP
For winter driving, the best winter tires are far superior to the best all-season tires, said Jennifer Stockburger, who conducts tire testing for Consumer Reports and is the director of operations at its auto test center.
One reason is a special tread design with “additional biting edges” called sipes, Ms. Stockburger said.
In addition, winter tires have a special rubber compound that stays more pliable — and thus grippy — when the temperature drops, she said.
One downside is that the softer compound doesn’t last as long as the compound on an all-season tire. Another is that the cornering and braking on dry pavement may be diminished.
“They are squirmier. The more pliable rubber. The additional cuts. There’s no free lunch,” she said.
The Quebec government considers winter tires to be such an advantage that in 2008 it began requiring them on passenger vehicles between December and March.

Ed note: The following article came out this past year from Syracuse University. It highlights Al’s career as a scientist and rogue bagpipe player – the ghost of Archibald Stadium. Al is one of the many “FIPs” at Skyline.
“I’ve always wanted to play the bagpipes,” says Alfred U. MacRae ’54, G’57, G’60, one of the University’s most celebrated alumni. “My ancestors were from the Highlands of Scotland, and it was only natural for me to play them. They’re in my blood.”
While MacRae has celebrated his ancestry through music, he is equally at home in the laboratory. The former pipe major is renowned in the fields of electronics and communications equipment. Upon earning degrees, including a Ph.D. in physics from the College of Arts and Sciences, he embarked on a 35-year career at Bell Telephone Labs in New Jersey. MacRae started out in the Basic Physics area, studying the location of atoms on surfaces; in time, he pioneered the development of silicon integrated circuits and satellite communications technology.
“I never had a dull day at Bell Labs,” says the Seattle resident, who received the college’s 2012 Distinguished Alumni Award. “I always was learning something new and working with many talented colleagues.”
As if designing satellites and developing semiconductor chip technology was not captivating enough, MacRae rounded out his career with consulting, lecturing and writing. He is the holder of 18 patents and is a member of numerous trade organizations, including the National Academy of Engineering, home to more than 2,000 peer-elected luminaries in business, government and academia.
With global production of transistors at an all-time high, experimentalists such as MacRae occupy a unique place in science and technology. “I was at Syracuse during a very important time. When I think about everything I did there and the people I worked with—well, it’s music to my ears,” he adds.
From Nautilis: “After all, for 60 years it had been known that human cells were immortal, capable of dividing forever if they were cultivated in the right medium under the right conditions. But some of Hayflick’s cells were not dividing. He could have chalked it up to the usual suspects: Maybe his sample had been contaminated, or there was a problem with the way he’d prepared the cells. A few weeks passed, however, and not only did his finding remain the same, but a pattern emerged: The cells would double around 50 times, then stop dividing.
Today, we take it for granted that human cells multiply a finite number of times. They stop at the aptly-named Hayflick Limit, when their telomeres—the protective caps at the ends of our chromosomes—get too short. But at the time, the scientific community deemed Hayflick’s discoveries—that normal cells are mortal, that they have memory and an internal counting mechanism, that cancer cells are uniquely immortal—preposterous. It would take nearly a decade of criticism and skepticism before his ideas were accepted as fact.
Hayflick’s ideas have revolutionized the way we think about aging: as a process intrinsic to our cells, and not the result of outside stressors. He went on to a storied career, developing a cell strain used in most human virus vaccines, serving as an anatomy professor at the University of California, San Francisco, as president of the Gerontological Society of America, and as a co-founder of the National Institute on Aging.
Earlier this month, Hayflick spoke with Nautilus about his thoughts on the biological cause of aging, his frustration with current research in the field of gerontology, his skepticism toward claims that we’ll be able to use science to extend the human lifespan, and his views on the relationship between research and commercial interest.” Click here for the full article.
Thanks to Gordon G for sending this along. We are entering a new area where using specialized cells modified with your genome in mind, may provide the breakthroughs in cancer, parkinson’s and other serious illness.
| February 2019 |
| Whether you advocate for yourself, a loved one, or the entire Aging Network, we hope the information in this month’s AgeWise resonates with you. We all deserve good health, respect, and dignity. READ MORE |
|
Please
forward this message to friends, family, and neighbors. Encourage them to
sign up for AgeWise, too – they can click
here for a free subscription!
Ava Frisinger, Chair Seattle King County Advisory Council on Aging and Disability Services |
Thanks Jeff E. for sending this in.
An Airbus 380 is
on its way across the Atlantic. It flies consistently at 800 km/h in 30,000
feet, when suddenly a Eurofighter with Tempo Mach 2 appears.
The pilot of the fighter jet slows down, flies alongside the Airbus and greets
the pilot of the passenger plane by radio: “Airbus flight, boring flight
isn’t it? Take care and have a look here!”
He rolls his jet on its back, accelerates, breaks through the sound barrier,
rises rapidly to a dizzying height, only to swoop down almost to sea level in a
breathtaking dive. He loops back next to the Airbus and asks, “Well, how
was that?”
The Airbus pilot answers: “Very impressive, but now have a look
here!”
The jet pilot watches the Airbus, but nothing happens. It continues to fly
stubbornly straight, with the same speed. After five minutes, the Airbus pilot
radioed, “Well, what are you saying now?”
The jet pilot asks confused: “What did you do?” The other laughs and
says, “I got up, stretched my legs, went to the back of the flight to the
bathroom, got a cup of coffee and a cinnamon cake and made an appointment with
the stewardess for the next three nights – in a 5 Star hotel, which is paid for
by my employer. “
The moral of the story is:
When you are young, speed and adrenaline seems to be great. But as you get
older and wiser, comfort and peace are not to be despised either.
This is called S.O.S. : S lower, O lder, S marter.
Dedicated to all my friends who like me likes the
S.O.S. approach!
Ed note: There’s a saying in medicine that the questions never change, but every few years the answers do. I was taught that it was “normal” for the systolic blood pressure to increase roughly 10 points for every decade and that the diastolic blood pressure was more important. Well, the answers have changed. Now the treatment of blood pressure in the elderly is much more aggressive. The systolic should likely be under 130 and possibly at 120 or even a bit lower. It’s best to discuss this with your own doctor. The risk of low blood pressure is real – falls being a significant problem. It’s a good idea to check your BP both sitting and standing to make sure it’s not dropping too much.
From the NYT: People who received intensive treatment for hypertension were less likely to develop minor cognitive problems than those receiving standard treatment.Coloured positron emission tomography (PET, centre) and computed tomography (CT, left) scans of the brain of a 62-year-old woman with Alzheimer’s disease.CreditZephyr/Science Source

In dementia research, so many paths have led nowhere that any glimmer of optimism is noteworthy.
So some experts are heralding the results of a large new study, which found that people with hypertension who received intensive treatment to lower their blood pressure were less likely than those receiving standard blood pressure treatment to develop minor memory and thinking problems that often progress to dementia.
The study, published Monday in JAMA, is the first large, randomized clinical trial to find something that can help many older people reduce their risk of mild cognitive impairment — an early stage of faltering function and memory that is a frequent precursor to Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias.
From Crosscut: Mayor Durkan wants to toll drivers to lower emissions and break Seattle’s gridlock, and new research shows it could benefit low-income communities, too.by

An evening view of the Pacific Tower on Beacon Hill, Seattle, with traffic on Interstate 5 traveling the highway. (Photo by Matt M. McKnight/Crosscut)
Early in her first year on the job, Mayor Jenny Durkan proposed an idea to ease Seattle’s increasingly terrible downtown traffic and reduce the city’s carbon emissions in the process.
It’s called congestion pricing, a wonky name for making drivers pay a toll when they enter a certain area of the city at certain times — usually the downtown core and typically only on weekdays or during rush hour. It’s seen a fair bit of success in London, Stockholm, Singapore and a few other cities around the world. The number of private vehicles entering central London dropped 39 percent in the first 11 years after congestion pricing was introduced. A Johns Hopkins study of Stockholm found that cleaner air from reduced traffic in the congestion-pricing zone led to 45 percent fewer asthma attacks in young children. If the mayor gets her way, Seattle would be the first city in North America to implement congestion pricing.
But when Durkanannounced her intentions in April, the support from transportation advocates and urbanist types couldn’t match the skepticism coming from almost everyone else. Interestingly, both supporters and opponents voiced concern that congestion pricing would hurt lower-income residents already squeezed by Seattle’s skyrocketing cost of living. For people pushed to the edges of the city and beyond by high housing costs, inadequate transit service can make driving the only practical transportation choice.
It’s an issue Seattle will surely have to address to clear the high political barrier of a new downtown toll. In October, the city hired consultants Nelson Nygaard to begin studying how congestion pricing could work in Seattle without exacerbating existing inequities.
A new report from San Francisco-based transportation advocates TransForm makes the case that congestion pricing can be be implemented not only without hurting low-income populations, but can actually improve equity. Released today, Pricing Roads, Advancing Equity surveys existing congestion pricing and other road-tolling programs to come up with a model that might work for Seattle and other cities.
“If we can match real benefits for vulnerable communities at the same time we’re able to make more efficient use of our road space, we think there’s a real win-win there,” said TransForm Executive Director Stuart Cohen. (TransForm is a subcontractor working on Nelson Nygaard’s Seattle study, but the Advancing Equity study was produced independently.)
“There is no single region that is doing a model program,” said Cohen. But he pointed to several solutions from different cities that could complete the puzzle: Los Angeles’ successful outreach to get low-income communities the EZ Pass-style transponders needed for tolled HOV lanes, or London’s congestion pricing exemption for drivers with disabilities, or even Seattle’s own discounted transit fares.
The report argues that cities need four things to make congestion pricing equitable.The first is perhaps most critical: Cohen explains that bringing stakeholders from low-income communities into the planning process from the start is important because “planners and policy makers don’t always understand the obstacles that communities face in a detailed way. Too often, when plans are fleshed out before taking it to the community, they don’t fully address some of those most urgent needs.”
The other three elements are a little more self-explanatory. Offering a discount or exemption for low-income drivers entering the congestion pricing zone helps ease the burden of the added cost. Spending toll revenues on bus service improvements, especially in areas currently underserved by transit, helps get people out of cars. Investing revenues into public health initiatives like zero-emission electric buses and bike and pedestrian infrastructure can help offset the disproportionate impact transportation pollution has had on low-income communities.
“Right now people just see congestion pricing as an added cost instead of seeing its potential to provide an even more affordable transportation system that greatly increases access for the most vulnerable communities,” said Cohen. “We’re very used to the status quo and the status quo is hurting vulnerable communities with high costs every day.”
Despite the benefits, taking congestion pricing from idea to reality will be politically difficult in Seattle. A recent Seattle Times poll found that 70 percent of residents either oppose or strongly oppose congestion pricing. But there is evidence residents have to experience congestion pricing before they come around to it. In Stockholm, public support for congestion pricing was barely above 30 percent when it was first implemented. After five years, it jumped to almost 70 percent.
According to a Seattle Department of Transportation spokesperson, the Nelson Nygaard report on congestion pricing in Seattle is due out in early 2019. Durkan has stated she hopes to have congestion pricing in place by the end of her first term in 2021.
Katie Wilson, general secretary of the Seattle Transit Riders Union, said she’s interested in congestion pricing as a way to reduce driving, increase funding for transit and reduce carbon emissions quickly. But she is skeptical that Seattle is ready to pull it off.
“Congestion pricing is unthinkable unless we step up and do a lot of foundational work,” said Wilson. “If this is going to be politically viable, we better get to work on bus lanes and bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure. [We need to] make it so people feel like they actually have better options than driving.”

Ed Note: The article below explains how little President Trump understands about Afghanistan. Or perhaps he does understand Russia’s aspirations there and is effectively turning the “great game” back their favor. The book, The Great Game, documents the long history of Russia and England vying for control of the area – with England being defeated twice in the 1800’s after invading Afghanistan. History gives credence to the duplicity of any “binding agreement” with the Taliban or Afghan government. The Afghans have great pride and have great distrust of foreigners and Khafirs (non-believers). I suspect that the USA is turning a blind eye, is fatiguing of war and is unmindful of human rights abuses (and women’s rights). The consequences of our actions don’t bode well.
From the NYT: WASHINGTON — One day in October 1979, an American diplomat named Archer K. Blood arrived at Afghanistan’s government headquarters, summoned by the new president, whose ousted predecessor had just been smothered to death with a pillow.
While the Kabul government was a client of the Soviet Union, the new president, Hafizullah Amin, had something else in mind. “I think he wants an improvement in U.S.-Afghan relations,” Mr. Blood wrote in a cable back to Washington. It was possible, he added, that Mr. Amin wanted “a long-range hedge against over-dependence on the Soviet Union.”
Mr. Blood’s newly published cable sheds light on what really drove the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan only two months after his meeting with Mr. Amin. Spoiler alert: It was not because of terrorism, as claimed this month by President Trump, who said the Soviets were right to invade. Among the real motivations, the cable and other documents suggest, was a fear that Afghanistan might switch loyalties to the West.
Subtitled: “Where is America Heading?”
The book is available on Amazon in paperback and Kindle formats.
Ed Note: Science continues to push well ahead of the ethical implications involved, especially now with the ability to modify our basic genetic makeup. With Crispr the key is now present to consider literally cutting out bad genes known to cause serious diseases. But what about unintended consequences? What about rogue scientists who want to be known as pioneers. The article below delves into this dilemma but the concerns remain. Historically so many of our technologies have proven to have dire consequences. Can we do better now?
By The Editorial Board of the NYT
The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.Jan. 28, 2019

Scientists quickly condemned the Chinese researcher who altered the DNA of at least two embryos to create the world’s first genetically edited babies, defying a broad consensus against hereditary tinkering.
But as The Times reported last week, the global scientific community is divided over what to do next. Should researchers agree to a moratorium on any human genome editing that can be passed down to future generations? Or should they simply tighten existing criteria?
It’s good that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine are planning a global forum to address these questions. But it will be crucial for biologists to seek substantial input from policymakers, ethicists, social scientists and others.
Crispr, the gene editing technique that the Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, used, has enabled scientists to alter human DNA with far greater ease than ever before. It has the potential to remake life as we know it — by preventing devastating diseases, among many other possibilities — and decisions about its future use should be driven by as inclusive and global a dialogue as possible.
Fortunately, there are several ways to broaden the conversation.
Diversify the deciders. Science is a noble endeavor, but it is not entirely pure. Patents and profits and the race against competitors influence individual researchers as well as entire scientific programs. (The Crispr patent, which is currently the subject of a fierce legal battle, is expected to be worth $1 billion at least.) Those influences are not necessarily corrupting, but money and ego have a way of skewing priorities. Dr. He, for example, is said to have gone rogue partly out of a desire to be the first to create “Crispr babies.”
As gene-editing technology advances toward the clinic, scientists will need to do more than listen to the concerns of bioethicists, legal scholars and social scientists. They will have to let these other voices help set priorities — decide what questions and issues need to be resolved — before theory becomes practice. That may mean allowing questions over societal risks and benefits to trump ones about scientific feasibility.
As several scholars have suggested, a “global observatory” — an international consortium of experts from many different fields in many different countries — would go a long way toward making this shift.
Engage the public. Obvious though this may sound, it’s not a given. “There’s a lot of skepticism about the value of public involvement in science and technology decisions,” says Simon Burall, a senior associate with Involve, a British nonprofit dedicated to increasing public engagement in science. That’s too bad. There’s plenty of evidence that having citizens weigh in on proposed policies makes them better and more sustainable. There are also far too many examples of the converse: Leaving the public out of the conversation invites suspicion and mistrust that can be difficult to overcome. It’s easy to dismiss concerns over new technology as the product of ignorance. It’s also a mistake.
Thanks to Mary Jane F for sending this in.
From the NYT: ” Jeremy Hunt, the British foreign minister, arrived in Washington last week for a whirlwind of meetings dominated by a critical question: Should Britain risk its relationship with Beijing and agree to the Trump administration’s request to ban Huawei, China’s leading telecommunications producer, from building its next-generation computer and phone networks?
Britain is not the only American ally feeling the heat. In Poland, officials are also under pressure from the United States to bar Huawei from building its fifth generation, or 5G, network. Trump officials suggested that future deployments of American troops — including the prospect of a permanent base labeled “Fort Trump” — could hinge on Poland’s decision.
And a delegation of American officials showed up last spring in Germany, where most of Europe’s giant fiber-optic lines connect and Huawei wants to build the switches that make the system hum. Their message: Any economic benefit of using cheaper Chinese telecom equipment is outweighed by the security threat to the NATO alliance.
Over the past year, the United States has embarked on a stealthy, occasionally threatening, global campaign to prevent Huawei and other Chinese firms from participating in the most dramatic remaking of the plumbing that controls the internet since it sputtered into being, in pieces, 35 years ago.
The administration contends that the world is engaged in a new arms race — one that involves technology, rather than conventional weaponry, but poses just as much danger to America’s national security. In an age when the most powerful weapons, short of nuclear arms, are cyber-controlled, whichever country dominates 5G will gain an economic, intelligence and military edge for much of this century.