Justice is not Served, Again

One of those unscientific polls at the end of a news story: "Do you think Colin Kaepernick should or should not be on an NFL roster this season?

Of course I think he should. But only 13 percent of the respondents agree with me. Eighty-three percent say, "No, I think he should not be."

A whopping majority.

My heart drops. What has become of America? Can't they see this is wrong? Yes, he knelt during the National Anthem, but if you demand that people salute your flag, you disrespect the freedom that flag stands for. Can't the world see that?

Kaepernick was showing solidarity with Black people who were unjustly being shot by police. He was saying, This is wrong. If America is about this, I will not support it. I will not honor a country that will not honor justice. 

And, for standing up for justice, we hate him as a nation? We deprive him of playing football despite his talent? Justice is not served, again. 

2,000 Dams Have Come Down, and not a New One Built in 43 Years

   With a tear, I read how more than 2,000 dams have been removed, 65 in last year, alone. Some, perhaps, needed to come down. The wishes of the native Americans deserve to be a large factor in such decisions. And, if it is the only way to save an endangered species, that also should be a large concern.

   But, I do not like to see the dams disappear. I have come to appreciate them.

  So, 2,000 dams have been removed, 65 in the past year, alone. How does that compare to how many new dams have built?

   There hasn't been a new one for about 43 years. Speaking of droughts, how's that for a drought?

   But, construction of a decades-in-the-planning dam in the Sacramento Valley is to start in 2024 and be completed by 2030, providing water to 24 million people and propping up agriculture in the Central Valley. In an age of fear that water could dry up, wisely saving water behind dams is ever-so important. 

   But, it comes with a fear, itself. When droughts reach their worst, even the reservoirs dry up.

   Sites Reservoir will not be much for producing electricity, though it will be a source during peak usages. Overall, the dam is expected to be a consumer of power. 

   There are more than 90,000 dams in the U.S. Word is that a major reason none have been built in recent decades is that all the potential sites have been used.

   I believe we should scour the country in search for overlooked sites -- and that includes revisiting the sites of some of the 2,000 dams that have been torn down. 

(Index -- Climate change info)

 

 

The Air You Breathe Might Be Contaminated With Toxic Metals

 You there, are you feeling abdominal pain, chills, fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting? 

This just in: it might be from toxic metals.

Now listen, I know you've got a lot of problems. I know it sometimes seems like you can't eat anything without it being something that is harmful. You can't so much as take a breath of air. 

Pollutants in everything we eat and breathe.

And, nanoplastics -- micro small particles that detatch from plastics that float in the air and get in our water -- they can create health problems. 

I guess we could say America has enough problems without adding floating metals and floating plastics to the list. But, yeah, I think we better. Who knows what health benefits we would find if we were but to cut down on particulate matter -- small micro-sized particules ranging from dust to metals.

So, our efforts should be to do so. 

(Index -- Climate change info)

I Apologize for Offending You About Guns

I apologize.

I do not like the gun. I rail on it much. So much, it takes away from those who want to read my posts. Just another rant against guns, they probably say. I don't have use or time for that. Doesn't he know guns are guarded by the Constitution, they are guaranteed.

I know what the Constitution says, and, no, I don't agree they are protected by that great document. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The whole of the Second Amendment is maybe a little hard to remember, so the part that gets rememebered and quoted is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

But, the first part provides context. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." They did not have standing armies back then. When war broke out, the soldiers had to bring their own muskets.

Today, there is a standing army, one with tanks and fighter jets and missiles and bombs. When the soldier marches off to war, he doesn't have to bring his own weapon along. So, the Second Amendment is saying, because we need you soldiers to bring your own weapons, that is why we are going to establish that you have the right to keep and bear arms.

I simply believe there are too many guns. I believe they are an instrument of death. Man might have been created that he should have joy, but the gun was created to kill. That's why it was invented. That is its purpose.

Societies with fewer guns have fewer murders, generally. And, I read a 2001 online story that says, "About one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership."

Please, no, do not think I'm calling for banning guns. First, there would be a major uproar is we banned them. Second, I'm not sure even if there were no uproar coming that I would want to ban guns. But, I am not a fool. I am not blind. I do not turn my back on the facts. I know guns are harmful.

Let us put restrictions on their use to take them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. Let us license and regulate and do more background checking. Let us realize we do have a problem and do something about it.

I apologize for offending you. People have turned their back on me and walked away in anger when they've found out I do not like guns. I've been taught that doing the right thing is not always popular. I think this is one of those times. 

Why not EV Charging Stations on Par With Gasoline Stations?

 How about the world's first charging station for electric vehicles on level with gas stations? You know, 1) plenty of charging spots, 2) located just off a busy freeway exit, 3) accompanied by a convenience store. All that.

Any of those around? I certainly haven't seen them -- although I don't live in California. But, I'm doubting  even California has them.

Me and the Gun Have a Sit-Down Talk

I don't like the gun. Even if it had all the virtues ascribed to it -- and it does have some --I do not like it. It was created to send people to their death, and that is what it does. I simply refuse to "make nice" with what I view to be a mostly evil-inflicting tool.

But, we are on talking terms -- me and the gun -- and yesterday it interviewed me, just to tie down where our relationship is at. Ours is a strained relationship, and it was just trying to make things better between us.

Gun: What is our relationship -- where do I stand with you?
Me: We don't have a relationship. Never have. We might be on talking terms, but we are not friends -- at all.

Gun: Do you mind me asking some more questions, just to find out what it is you don't like about me?

Me: Not at all. Fire away. You are always firing away; I don't think you'll have any problem now.

Gun: You know there is no way you can get rid of me, don't you? Not with the way Americans feel about guns.

Me: I know. It's very unfortunate, but we can't get rid of guns because there are too many people who honestly like you. Americans have been trained up from their childhood up that you are part of their Constitutional rights. They have been taught that they need the gun to protect their families and to ward off tyranny. There would be an uproar -- an outright uproar, outrage and revolt -- if we got rid of you.

Gun: Do you think police officers use me to go around killing people?
Me: That might be a little much. Most police officers are good people, and don't do that.

Gun: I mean, any at all --  are there any police officers killing folks when they shouldn't?

Me: Of course. Our police officers are cut from the fabric of the general public. Bad people exist. That part of society doesn't disappear just because you are hiring a police force. The gun that can be misused by a common criminal can be misused by a police officer.

Gun: Do you think I'm to blame for mass murders?
Me: The mass murder and you are partners in crime. Nothing makes it so easy to kill a large amount of people very quickly than you do. When it comes to mass murders, you are the weapon of choice. 

Gun: Even though you don't like me, I've got my friends -- lot's of them. And, if more people were lovers of guns, I could stop all the home invasions, all the mass murders, all the times women are assaulted walking down the street. I alone can do these things. I, alone can save our country. People know I'm great. They know I'm good and that I do nothing but good. You know that, too, don't you? You just won't admit it.

Me: Spare your sanctimony. You might have some good characteristics, but you overstate them. Yes, there are times you step in and save people, but there would be fewer assaults to begin with if it weren't for you.

Gun: What do you mean by that? There would be less, and you know it. The more of me, the better. Spread me around. Go out and buy a gun. The more of me there is, the more good I can do.

Me: No. Just the opposite. The fewer times we see your face around here, the better. We speak of the proliferation of the gun, and of how the more people who have it, the more times it will be used. It's true. It's simple arithmetic. But, the term "thick as thieves" is what you're all about.

Gun: You're making me mad, and we all know what happens when I get mad. You better say you're sorry. 

Me: That's the other thing about you. You empower anger. Yes, I know what you do when you get angry -- you kill people.

Gun: That's just me helping. When someone makes you mad, I can help. I can put them in their place. And, if both have guns, I can help them both.

Me: Might makes right, then. Is that what you're saying? The guy with the bigger weapon wins the war. All you do is escalate things and make them worse. If one person has a gun, the other goes to get one. Everyone knows that when two people get mad at each other, they start swinging at each other. If they just had their fists, it would just be a fist fight. But if guns are present, it becomes a gun fight. 

Gun: Just one more thing. You know I'm a patriot, don't you? In fact, I'm the ultimate patriot. Everyone who uses me flies a flag. Can't you make that connection?  My friends are the true lovers of freedom in this world. You know that, don't you? If you really loved freedom, you'd go out and buy a gun too.

Me: You'd have me believe that, if you could. To me, though, a patriot and a good guy isn't someone who tries to associate themselves with goodness by waving a flag. Death isn't freedom. If you're saying I can't be a patriot unless I have a gun, I'll just defy you and be a patriot anyway.

(Index -- Stories)
 

In Stopping Bank Fraud, We've Breakdowns on Every Level

When it comes to stopping banking fraud, we have breakdowns on every level. 

The first to have responsibility are the banks. They are at the point of the crime. They are the ones that collected all the information -- social security number, passwords used for online banking, etc. --that are essential to pinning the crime on the perpetuator.

The second to have responsibility are the police. The way we set society up, they are the protectorates of the people. They are the ones whose charge it is to investigate, collect the evidence, build the case, and send it on to the prosecutors.

The third in our line of responsibility? The prosecutors. It is their charge to take the case before the judge and get a conviction

 The banks are the gatekeepers in the whole process. The police and the prosecutors rely on them for most of the information necessary to arrest and convict.

Unfortunately, the banks largely abdicate their responsibility. Our system is jeopardized from the moment it comes out of the gate because of the banks. When you see a crime, you report it, right? Banks are under no less of an obligation than are the citizenry. But, in reality, the number of times the bank takes the initiative to call the police and report the crime are minimal. Instead, they often withhold information from the police -- no surveillance videos, etc. They suppress release of the markings on the case such as the security codes and usernames and passwords created by the applicant. Despite having all the information necessary to catch the criminal, bank fraud departments seldom pursue the criminal. They investigate far enough to determine if they should return the money to the victim; but that is it.

Often, police departments do little more than take a report. The investigation does not go further than reviewing the information provided by the victim. If a real investigation is to take place, it is left with the victim to do it. Our police are swamped with domestic violence and other crimes, but we cannot 

Imagine the frustration of the police when they painstakingly put together a case, only to have the prosecutors say there just isn't enough evidence. I am privy to a  case (I was the victim) in which the perpetrator of the crime left her name on both ends of the transaction: The check was written to her, and went into her bank account. Yet, the district attorney's office said, Sorry, not enough evidence. What? What more evidence do you need? What more evidence would it even be possible to collect? 

And, even in cases in which the police do not provide enough information to convict, the prosecutors (when they are reviewing the cases), should be concerned with spotting the holes that can and should be filled. They are the lawyers trained in the law. They know the norms that must be met. They should point out to the police the things that could be done to improve the case. Instead of just saying, There is not enough information to convict, they should be saying, Go back and get this piece of information and I think we will have enough evidence to persuade the judge.

Which brings up perhaps a forth level in which we are failing: the courts. Are judges failing to convict for whatever reason, perhaps because our prisons are full? That is a problem; committing wire fraud and bank fraud are serious offenses -- or should be -- and need to be treated as such by the judge.

And, perhaps there is a fifth level in which we are failing. If, after going through all the above stages to bring a conviction, the criminal is but slapped on the hand, receiving but a $5,000 fine, we are not appreciating the severity of the crime. We cannot be soft on crime. The punishment needs to include jail time. Our legislatures become the fifth responsible party. They are responsible for creating the laws. 

The Year Climate Change Took Its Gloves Off

Heat exacerbated fires in Canada, Spain, Greece and Switzerland. More than 4,000 forest fires raged in Canada in the first six months of 2023. Smoke left people gagging in New York and Chicago, then drifted all the way to Europe. And, the talk of the town was all about how Britney Spears got her hands slapped away for trying to tap some extra tall basketball player on the shoulder.

Three months worth of rain in a single day pounded down on Nova Scotia. "Biblical proportions," A mayor there called it. And, yet many people sat around talking about how old Joe Biden was.

In Death Valley, temperatures reached an unbelievable 128 degrees. (But, don't worry, water doesn't boil until it reaches 212 degrees, and there's not a whole lot of water in Death Valley, anyway.) Meanwhile, Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling made the news explaining why Barbie and Ken didn't kiss in some new movie.

In Phoenix, temperatures reached at least 110 degrees for 25 consecutive days. Hospital beds in Arizona filled with burn patients, many of who simply fell on the scorching hot ground. And, all the while, the talk on people's lips was about who Kevin Costner's and Tom Brady's new girlfriends were. 

Oh, they spoke of the weather, but not of the cause. And, along came a report saying the extreme temperatures were made possible by . . . 

Climate change. Who would've thought.

Look at 2023. Extreme weather is to it what Covid was to 2020. Except, Covid was all the talk, while the extreme weather is but in the middle of the mix when it comes to the news and people's chatter. People have more important things to talk about. The Year 2023 will go down as the year climate change came out of hiding. Well, okay, it has been around for years, and it's hardly been hiding. But the Year 2023 has been the year it took it's gloves off. It has been the year electric cars gained traction, sales taking off and new models hitting the market. But, climate looked down from its skies and said, Too little, too late. You guys just wouldn't listen then, and you're still not listening. 

The Year 2023 is the year climate change tapped us on the shoulder. And, like Victor Wembanyama, we just kept on walking. 

(Index -- Climate change)

Five Years Later, We Remember Makayla Yeaman

  At a home in West Jordan with a sign warning trespassers they would be shot, in the early morning hours Nikolas Hill discovered a home invader hiding in his closet. She held the palms of her hands in the air, toward him. "I'm going to go," she said. She made a break for the front door, but it was locked. 

  As the intruder, Makayla Yeaman, dropped her hands toward her waist, Hill knew she was a dead person. An interviewing officer would later ask him how it made him feel when her hands reached down to her waistline. He would explain to the officer that this was not the first time that he had killed someone, but it was the first time he had killed someone in his home. He did not feel safe, he said, and his training kicked in. He, alone, stood between the intruder and his family -- and he wasn't going to let the her leave his home.

   Not alive, that is.

   Hill fired four shots, believing two hit her in front, one in the side and one in the back. A knife would be found near her body, and Hill said it did not belong to him. The interviewing officer would ask Hill if he saw her display anything (meaning a weapon), and Hill would respond that he did not, but that it was dark, and he just reacted.

   Weeks later, the district attorney's office would screen the case, and decide not to prosecute.

   You judge yourself whether Hill should have shot and killed the apparently homeless intruder. I firmly believe he should not -- definitely should not have killed her. I am not ready to let the district attorney's office off for not prosecuting, wondering if there was some way to make a charge stick. But, truth be told, we have laws in our state enabling murder. We call one the Castle Law, and the other the Stand Your Ground Law. If the person doing the killing can reasonably say he or she was simple defending themselves, then it is as simple as that, they cannot be prosecuted. When there are no other witnesses, and the victim is dead, it is the killer's word alone that stands. If he says he was defending himself, that's it. Case closed.

   I wrote a version of this story in 2018. Makayla's killing had made the news. I was outraged. I went to the courthouse and paid for a copy of the police report, providing me with the details. Some of the news stories had gone little beyond saying the homeowner had killed an intruder. Just another example of our Second Amendment rights protecting a homeowner, many readers must have concluded. Good for that homeowner.

   The sign outside Hill's home warning that trespassers would be shot didn't leave it at that. It said that if they survived the first shot, they would be shot again. That is malice, or can be. If you aren't satisfied with just stopping the intruder, but insist that they be killed, that is malice. 

   Yes, I think the DA's office should have considered that as it determined whether to press charges. And, yes, I think the DA's office should have considered that she was fleeing for the door.

   And, yes, I think our laws should be changed so they are more just.

   The Makaylas of this world will continue to leave this world if no one protects them. The laws are written against them. They are the victims. And we will continue to have victims like Makayla Yeaman if nothing is done to change things. 

Up on the Housetop there's a Lot of Electricity

Solar energy is mocked, of course. After all, is it not true that when the sun goes down, the lights go out? -- if you are on solar, that is.

But, do not underestimate the power of the sun. Let's start just with rooftop solar, alone. You've probably got in your head that sticking small solar panels on housetops just won't work. There's not too much room up there on those housetops.  And, those panels can detract from the beauty of the home. 

Well, leave your neighborhood and take a drive through an industrial park. Warehouses, production sites. Large, spacious buildings. There's a lot of room for solar up there. And, pretty? No one worries too much about pretty in an industrial park, but since the buildings tend to be flattop, the rooftops are out of view, just the same.

Okay, here's the thing, and I'll quote from CleanTechnica to make the point: "If fully utilized, they (rooftop solar) could generate 25 percent of all the electricity used in commercial building in the United States and about 10 percent of all electricity generated in America."

Yeah, that's it -- by its little, lonesome self, rooftop solar could knock out 10 percent of all our electricity needs.

And, that study might be a shortchange -- by a long shot. Elsewhere, in another study, we are told -- ahem -- that if we utilized all the rooftop space in the world, it would amount to the the size of the United Kingdom. And would, in the words of the Forbes article, provide "more than the combined electricity consumption of the world in 2018." 

In theory. 

There's that word again. But theories don't work on a football field, only hard hitting does. Being practical, there's no way you are going to utilize all the space up on the rooftop.

The point is, though, that a large chunk of our electricity needs can be provided by rooftop solar, alone. 

But, remember, we are not here to talk about rooftop alone. What about all our energy needs? Turn back to that CleanTechnica article, and it says, solar power "could supply all the electricity the world needs forever."

Remember that famous argument between Elon Musk and Bill Gates? Musk suggested that if we placed solar panels on a piece of land just 100 miles by 100 miles, it would supply enough electricity for all of America's needs. Gates felt differently. He called solar "cute," but said the answer to our energy needs was really nuclear. 

Musk won, kind off. It turns out he only took into account the space for the panels, themselves, not the access and service ways to serve them. Once that was added, it would take 1.6 percent of America's land space to be dedicated to solar. 

But, if we go as heavy on rooftop solar as we can, the whole thing becomes very workable.

Now, there is that little matter of the sun only being up when the sun is up. No energy is produced at night, right? Haven't you heard? Someone invented batteries. Let's not throw that invention away.

Nor should we forget that in escaping the fossil fuel dynasty, we don't need to rely solely on solar. Wind, water, and thermal are willing to step onto our football field -- we did call it a football field -- and take a lateral pass in for the touchdown.

(Index -- climate change)

In Times of War, Nuclear Power Plants are Liabilities

  Nuclear reactors are war liabilities. What is to stop a 9-11 inspired pilot from flying his airplane straight into a reactor?

  And, what of countries that harvest plutonium or enrich uranium, supposedly for energy power plants but who shift those elements over to the production of nuclear weapons?

  Nuclear energy is the only power source that can be misused those ways in times of war.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Five Things Against Nuclear Power

Five things against nuclear power -- and we'll leave meltdowns out:
1.) It is expensive.
2.) It has a long construction time, and with the need to move swiftly to energy sources free of greenhouse gases, that is critical.
3.) It requires harmful uranium mining and use, the extraction, refining, and reactor processes polluting the air and water.
4.) It produces dangerous waste that must be stored or buried for years, and sometimes centuries, before becoming safe.
5.) It cuts into the development of renewable energy, as nuclear projects are pushed by proponents as a means of reducing wind and solar.

(Index -- Climate change info)

And a Whole Lot Less American

"Try that in a small town," Jason Aldean sings in a new song.

"Cuss out a cop, spit in his face  / Stomp on the flag and light it up / Yeah, ya think you're tough / Well, try that in a small town / See how far ya make it down the road / Around here, we take care of our own / You cross that line, it won't take long / For you to find out, I recommend you don't / Try that in a small town," Aldean sings. 

And, that's when Aldean introduces the gun. "Got a gun granddad gave me." The video then goes on, filled with images of protesters and rioting. "Try that in a small town" the song repeats over and over.

The message that gets across is that you might just get shot.

If the idea is vigilantism, Jason conveys the message well. If it is a rally to guns as a response to protesters, Jason conveys that message, too. 

Spit on our flag, and we'll shoot off your head. No, the song doesn't say that. But, the point is, the song stirs people to anger and a self-righteousness that they should jump for their guns and kill the protesters.

Burning a flag is not a good thing, not American. But shooting someone for burning a flag is a whole lot worse.

And, a whole lot less American.

We listen to our heroes. And, if they suggest gun violence, we're on it like butter on toast. "You cross that line, it won't take long / For you to find out, I recommend you don't / Try that in a small town."

Send that Dog to a School that Will Teach Him to Disobey

   That dog has got to go. It doesn't matter if it is a Pit Bull, a Rottweiler, or even a beloved German Shepherd, get rid of it. It can kill people.

   Okay, maybe I go a little too far. I don't guess we need to exterminate all Boxers. But, hey, we need to do something about them. There are 4.7 million dog bites each year, and I would guess that's just the reported ones. Only 16 people per year are killed. You decide if that is not enough to worry about. And, we should take into account not only the physical harm, but the mental trauma that is inflicted.

   Spank that dog all the way to the dog pound, and then euthanize it.

   Okay, once again I go too far. A dog is man's best friend; have I forgotten? Even the most vicious dog has a mild and loving side. Err, maybe.

   One thought is to simply do a better job of training. As is, there are some owners who train their dogs to attack. The dog becomes like a gun -- an instrument of death. Tell me you don't know someone who has bought a dog to defend themselves. That's fine, but it needs constraints. A dog is not like a gun, where you can say, guns don't kill, people do. Dogs kill. That 16 people a year might not be enough for you, but it's enough for me.

   Some dogs are raised to be guns, so to speak. They are raised to attack, to maim, and to harm -- all in the name of defending the owner. Somebody breaks into your home, you ought to be allowed to sic your dog on them, right?

   Okay, but teach the dog in obedience school to not attack unless the person is wielding a gun or a knife. I've been told by gun -- I mean dog owners -- that obedience schools teach exactly that. I wonder.

   Hey, it's not just obedience-training these dogs need, it's disobedience training. They need to be trained when not to attack -- regardless whether their owner is instructing them to assault someone. 

Singapore: Tip Our Hat to How it has Stopped the Gun

  Do not be afraid to tip your hat to Singapore, a little city-state that once was rife with gun-running and gun violence.

 Oh, I would not go so far as bringing in the death penalty for possession of a gun. No, certainly do not tip your hat for that. But there are things the U.S. could do after looking at Singapore. Make possession of guns by felons and others who shouldn't have them a more serious offense. Offer rewards for those who provide information leading to the arrest and conviction of those found possessing guns in violation of the law.

  Oh, I didn't say outlaw guns. In America -- where the gun is respected and believed to be a right to keep and bear -- a ban on guns just wouldn't make it. But, do roll out a comprehensive program that includes gun registration, gun licensing, and gun-use training.

 Singapore turned its gun situation on its head. America will not be able to do as much. But we can do some. 

By 2050, a Quarter of the World's Power Could Come from This

 One source of energy is hardly used at all, but there is a study that says come 2050, it could account for 25 percent of the world's energy needs.

 What's your guess -- nuclear, hydrogen, wind? You can quit guessing, because you've never even heard of it: concentrated solar power. No, it's not the same thing as the solar energy you are thinking of. To distinguish them, the one you are thinking of is called photovoltaic solar power. They both rely on the sun for the energy, but from there they diverge, as is evidenced by the fact that photovoltaic solar has become the cheapest way to produce electricity, while concentrated solar power (CPS) is the most-expensive renewable energy in the world.

CPS doesn't simply absorb the sun's energy, it uses mirrors and/or lenses to concentrate a large area of sunlight into a receiver. The concentrated sunlight then drives a heat engine -- most often a steam turbine.

Where CPS has the advantage over photovoltaic solar is in storage. The heat can be stored as heat, so the electricity can be generated 24/7, whether it is day or night. Since the major knock on photovoltaic solar is that it only works when the sun is shining, this is big.

An Epidemic of Police Violence and Misconduct

Everyone realizes the epidemic of mass murders, and few people object to the word, epidemic, being attached to them. And there are other things we consider as epidemics and we attach that word to them.

But, how about police violence? There may be movements in Congress, and from the president to address gun violence and mass murders, but what about police violence? I don't see HB XXX anywhere. I don''t believe a single congress member is concerned to the point of introducing legislation. 

No, I'm going to broaden my scope. I'm not just going to speak of police violence, I'm going to include all police misconduct. Yes, I think it is epidemic. It is a national epidemic that needs addressing. We need a comprehensive plan for dealing with it. 

Is that just me, or do you agree? And, is it a problem, but not an epidemic? How serious of a problem do we have here?

 

Equality in Learning Means Being Allowed to Learn on Your Own

You want to force people out of jobs -- especially the poor? I know of three ways. And, we're doing all three of them.

1.) Require union membership. 2.) Require licensing. 3.) Require a college degree. (Surprise, surprise --I picked three things you'd never have imagined.)

I didn't say union membership is bad, nor licensing, nor a college degree. I said requiring them is. Or, can be.

Let's take the first one. Union membership is not free. You have to be a member of the union just to get a job? What's up with that? You shouldn't need to be a member of a fraternity just to gain employment. There's not a good reason to limit employment just to those who join an insider group. Equality doesn't work that way. Workers should be hired on basis of their talents, not whether they are members of an exclusive group.

Let's take the second one. Why is it not wise to require too much licensing? Maybe we should make that too much training to get a license. If it were just a matter of studying on your own, passing a test, and getting your license, that would be fine, fair, and without foul play. But, when they are required to submit to hundreds of hours at a haircut school, that cuts out the poor. They can't take six months off from regular employment. 

Now, finally, we come to the college degree. We should be able to see the monster we've created here. Not only do we charge them, we charge them so much they might never be able to pay off their student loans. And, what of the poor? The disadvantaged simply do not have as much access to scholarships and admittance to high-powered colleges. 

Equality. That's the American word for lifting everyone -- including the poor and disadvantaged -- to the same heights of opportunity. 

Instead of requiring a college degree, make it so those who study on their own and learn just as much as the college kids are treated just as well and have the same opportunity for employment. Test them -- that's certainly fine -- but don't demand that they go to your gold-plated school.

It should be noted that each of these three things -- union membership, licensing, and college -- creates an industry that feeds on the workers. In each case, someone comes between the worker and the job and demands a cut. They extract a fee before they let you on your way. They demand a slice of your paycheck before you are even employed.

There is a little bit of a caste system involved here. Yes, the nation is full of rags to riches stories. Millionaires are made out of those who were minions. But, there are many more who don't make their way out of poverty simply because of the obstacles placed in their way.

Equality must feed the poor as quick as it feeds the rich.  A nation's riches should be measured not by how rich the rich are, but by how rich the poorest of poor can become.

When we subject one person to another -- and that is what each of the three things does -- we, in a way, violate the principle of  freedom. You shouldn't need to be subject to a union, or a licensing agency, or a college. 

It Better not Be because They Are Trying to Reduce Their Costs

Emergency rooms are often understaffed -- very often. If you have ever went to the emergency room, only to find yourself waiting to be admitted, and then waiting for the doctor to come see you, you know what I mean.

If you've ever waited for an hour writhing in pain, you can testify that our emergency rooms need to be better staffed. Hospitals should staff to the level of the highest traffic expectations. They should schedule enough workers to cover the high end of how many patients might possibly come through the doors.

Triage nurses are great, and they do help identify which type of doctor you need. And, it is great that they prioritize which patients need help the quickest, so the ones who need it the most can get it the quickest. But still, the very fact there is such a thing as triage nurses shouts the fact that emergency rooms are understaffed. Shouldn't everyone who goes to emergency be seen about as quick as they get there?

I imagine medical providers, if they were asked why they don't staff emergency rooms better, would say there's a shortage of doctors. We just aren't getting enough people into the profession. 

Maybe. 

I'll just say it better not be because hospitals are trying to reduce their costs. 

Issues Don't Divide Us So Much as Parties Do

Can we -- do we -- discuss any issue these days without it being attached to how the Democrats are jerks or the Republicans are jerks? It seems we can't discuss anything -- not abortion, immigration, nor gun rights nor the national deficit -- without dividing into two camps. The issue itself ends up not getting addressed so much as is our contempt for the other side. I mean, the definition of  a low lifer is someone who belongs to the other party. Everyone knows that, right? And, on come the slams and slurs, the spit and sleaze.

Hey, this is getting in the way of the issues.

Why can't we just discuss climate change as climate change and book-banning as book-banning without it becoming a struggle between the right and the left? It will reach a point (already did a long time ago) where it doesn't matter if there are points to be made for gun control and points against it. The right will ignore all the points favoring gun control and the left will not acknowledge any points against it. This is not so much about truth and finding the truth as it is about hating each other. It's not about what is fair and just; it's about burying the other side for wearing the wrong party clothes. 

Truth doesn't work that way. It doesn't yield to politics. Truth is big enough to consider the issues without raising playground taunts against the other side. 

The Makers of Lexicon Should Come up with a new Term: Illegal American

   Is American a title that comes with location -- if you live in America, you are an American?  Or, is it a title only for those who own citizenship?

   I think of another term we use, Illegal alien. An illegal alien is someone from another country who is not suppose to be here. Being here makes makes them illegal, so we call them illegal, and then we tack on that second word, alien, to signify that  they come from a foreign county.
   Not a very nice term, but we use it, anyway.
   The lexiconists tell us that the word immigrant is used to refer to a person moving to a new country, while emigrant is used to speak of someone moving away from a country. 

   So, what should we call those who arrive in this country? If they live in America, but its illegal for them to live in America, doesn't that make them . . . illegal Americans?

   Who would have ever thought there ever could be such a thing. Since when did it become illegal to be an American? Illegal American sounds like an oxymoron.

   Still, let's not throw out this term. It's a sight less derogatory than illegal alien. 
  

Those Who Fail to do Something get Shot

 Give us just a few things and gun violence in the U.S. will decline. At least try, America. At least make an effort. Put together a strategy to counter the gun violence in our nation. There's this old saying that says, "Fail to plan is to plan to fail.

1.) Register guns. Yes, the famous/infamous suggestion that guns be registered. This does not take guns away from the general citizenry. But, it does put criminals in more of a fix. If they register a weapon, it will attach their name to it and make it easier to identify them as the person who committed the crime. Guns left at the scene of the crime will be traceable to their owners. It is hard to understand why gun registration should be opposed, since it largely affects the criminals. We already have laws against ex-cons having guns; so why should anyone oppose a law that doesn't split the general citizenry from their guns but does make things just a little more difficult for the criminal?

2.)  Make it illegal for someone to register the gun for someone else and then punish those who break this law.  With this, they will think twice before buying a gun for someone else. If it is they who are on the line, they become more likely to toe the line.

3.) License the guns. Gun licensing is different from gun registration. With registration, it is the weapon that is registered. With licensing, it is the owner who is licensed. You don't just go buy a gun; you have to pass a test -- just as a car owner would. I have a friend who has noted that just as a driver's license is needed to drive, what he calls a "gunner's license" is required to operate a gun. There is nothing wrong with requiring training. No one is saying you can't keep or bear a weapon, They are just asking you to know the safety rules and learn when is the time to use the weapon and when it isn't. Bill Clinton was an advocate of gun licensing.

4.) Offer rewards for the apprehension and conviction of those who own guns illegally. We live in an incentive-driven world. If someone can reap a lot of money by turning in the criminal, they will be much more inclined to do so.

These are four ideas to stem gun violence. Obviously there could be more. But these four laws would be a starting point. America needs to have a strategy for curbing gun violence. We cannot freeze up like a deer in the headlights. 

If we do, we will get shot.

Political Parties don't Get Their License from the Constitution

What would you say is the most glaring departure from the Constitution in the way our government is conducted? Can I make a suggestion?

Political parties.

The Constitution simply doesn't say anything about them. It is clear as it spells out that there shall be three branches of government. And we do follow it there. And, it is explicit on the functions of the branches of the government, perhaps especially of Congress as it enumerates its powers one by one. And, we do at least reasonably well following it there.

But, what of political parties? The Constitution doesn't even mention them. What's up there? Where did they come from?  It appears we have meandered from government the way that the Constitution set government up.

Make no mistake, parties are a big element in our government system. You could well argue that they are the biggest influence of all. There is seldom a piece of legislation that isn't generated by one of our two parties.

They've kind of taken over our government.

And, you might wonder if we would be better off without them since the Constitution gives them no license.

Power to the People Means Ripping It from the Party

Just how would the populace go about it, if it were to decided to reclaim the political parties? If the people to be in charge of the parties, not the party leadership in charge of the people, how could that be achieved?

1.) Diminish the role of the leaders. It is the old adage that that government governs best which governs least. Take as many decisions as possible away from not only the party chair, but from the party delegates.

2.) Or, erase the party delegate system altogether. If this is to  be a party of the people, let every person registered in that party participate in a convention. Power to the people.

3.) Minimize the party platform. The fewer the planks, the fewer times party leaders are imposing their will on the people. A smaller platform leaves greater the freedom of choice for the candidates and for the party members. You don't have to follow rule from above because you are no longer letting the party dictate what you shall believe.

3.) Put some restrictions on how many people can be eliminated from the ballot in convention. Even if you let everyone in the party attend the convention, there will be even more party members who choose not to attend. They should not be disenfranchised. Always assure that there are at least two or three candidates on the primary ballot. The right to vote doesn't mean you only have the right to approve the candidate the party selected (albeit that's the way the Soviet Union did it), it means you have a choice of candidates. An election with only one person on the ballot is not an election. 

4.) Here is one responsibility you do not need to rip from the party chair and other party leaders: Let them be responsible for seeking out additional candidates for each primary election. Make it their obligation to ensure that there are at least two candidates in every race. This does give the party leadership some influence on whether there are quality candidates on the ballot. In the end, you want not just to have a preponderance of people running for office, but quality candidates. You will not have quality elected officials unless you have quality people running for office.

5.) But, do not put restrictions attempting to wean out those who might be extreme in their political views. Let them run. It becomes the voters' choice to eliminate the crackpots and kooks.

 

How Can You Be Free When You Have to do What You Are Told?

    Hey, America, why don't you take back your country? You know whose running it, don't you? The Republicans and the Democrats. When's the last time the Republicans said you can believe what you want without being labeled a Rhino? They don't give you the choice of believing what you want; they dictate to you what you should believe. In some states, they even make you sign a pledge to support their stands if you are going to run for office on their party.

   Democrats are not much better. You've got to check all the boxes to match the party line or you're  a Dino.

  Does that sound like freedom to you? Do what the party dictates, take the stands the party demands, say what the party wants you to.

  Whose running the ship here? Is it the people, or the party? Government has been turned upside down. Once we insistedd we need for government of the people, by the people, for the people. But that is no longer required. These days, it's government of the party, by the party, for the party.

   And, America, you don't seem to mind that.

My Aim Is True

The gun is the enemy. I have it in my sights and, if I could, I'd knock it right out of its barrel. Shoot it dead.

I just don't like the gun. I'm sorry. I know some tie it to patriotism. Many figure gun rights are what the Revolutionary War and patriotism are all about.

The gun: the guardian of freedom.

I don't see it that way. I see gangs killing each other off. I see friends and family killing each other off. I see mass murders, and suicides, and school children being killed.

I see John Wayne and Clint Eastwood on TV and want to kick them in the pants for making the gun so popular. We follow our icons and do what they say. Our heroes lead, and we follow. And then along comes the NRA. The NRA says go out and buy a gun, and we obey.

I've got something to say to all that.

My aim is true
Or at least if it were, the gun would be through
I'd shoot it dead, right out of society
And, I'd hardly be trying to do it quietly

I don't care if you mind
I don't mind if you care
That I don't honor the gun
Like the rocket's red glare

My draw might not be the fastest in town
My fame is hardly known all around
But in a fight between a pedigree dog and a mutt
I'd knock the gun right on its butt

I Will not Reduce My Patriotism to a Love of Guns

Patriotism, to some, includes displaying a gun. Open carry -- where you wear the gun out where everyone can see it -- is but a show of allegiance to the flag and the principles upon which America was founded.

Most don't go that far. But just having a gun, to many, is a show of patriotism. The Second Amendment gives the right to keep and bear arms, so they take that to mean they will be conducting an act of patriotism if they go out and buy a gun.

Guns = patriotism; patriotism = guns. That's what America is taught.

Which brings up the question: Can I be a patriot if I don't like guns? What if I simply think they encourage violence and accommodate those who commit murder? What if I say, yes, there should be restrictions on guns and how people go about getting them?

Do we say I am not supporting the Constitution, then? Do we question my patriotism, my love of country, and allegiance? Some might even go so far in their condemnation as to suggest I am spitting on the grave of every soldier who has died on the field of combat.

I believe in America. I love America. I'm grateful for the Constitution and the founding fathers and all they stood for.

But, no, I don't see anywhere in the Constitution -- or the Declaration of Independence -- anything that says I must lavish my adoration on the gun. I will bow to my God, and stand and salute the flag, but I will not pay homage to the tool bringing so much death and destruction upon our land.

Capital One Should be Required to Clean Up Their Mess

I post the following, a letter from me to a card company that is billing me $645, because it shows the irresponsible practices of the banking and credit industry.

Dear Capital One:

I just received another email from you, saying you would like to work with me to find a solution. You asked me to call 1-800-258-9319 and so I did. I waited on the line for 15 minutes before giving up. Make that 45 minutes.

I have tried numerous times to get through to you and haven't succeeded. You tell people to call you, then won't answer their calls. I once waited on the line 3 1/2 hours before dropping my phone and losing the call. 

So, I'm asking you to call me, (I gave them my number). Would that be asking too much?

I'm also asking -- again in writing -- that you release (mail to me) all the records and history and documents for my account.

This is my information. It is my account. (Although I am not the one who opened it or ever used it.) I have a right to it. This is information someone provided you to open an account in my name. You did not even check it before you allowed them to fraudulently open the account. That is negligent. It is criminal of you. If you do not have policies that protect customers from fraud, you are an irresponsible bank. More, by making it so easy for them to commit the crime, you become party to the crime -- complicit. And, if you do not release the information that might allow me to trace down the criminal, that is obstruction of justice. 

I am also asking you to return to point one: Go back to the name, phone number, social, and email address they provided and verify that they were mine -- that it was, as you accuse, me who opened the account. Call the phone number they gave and see if John Jackson answers. Don't ask them if it is John Jackson, as, of course they will just say, yes. Ask them what their name is. 

You have an obligation to do this. You were irresponsible to let the account be opened to begin with. But it is not too late to make right. It is not too late to be honest by doing your job. 

If per chance they did put my phone number on the application, and it is me who answers the phone, it still does not mean I opened the account. It simply means they used my phone number and you never called it to verify that I was opening an account. That was reckless of you, careless.

I am the victim and you are treating me as the criminal and making no effort to pursue the real criminal. Is that right? Is that honorable? Or does it make you part of the fraud, an unwitting accomplice?

I'm also requiring you to release (send to me) copies of all documents they used to open the account. If they did not have to provide any documents, how irresponsible, careless, and negligent is that? You are a bank and don't even do the things necessary to protect people's money? Should your charter be revoked for being so reckless and careless? You have an obligation to go after the criminal; do it.

I was only going to stay on hold for you to answer my call for 15 minutes, but it has now been 45. Still no answer. Such great customer service. I'm hanging up.

Call me, John Jackson, (I gave my phone number).

(Signed) John Jackson

P.S. -- Not only do you have an obligation to investigate this, you have an obligation to report everything to the Sandy City Police. 

P.S., again. And, not only do you have an obligation to investigate this, you have an obligation to solve it. Your negligence allowed the person to create the account in the first place, so you have an obligation to track him or her down. Your irresponsibility allowed the problem, so you need to fix it. You messed up; go back and clean up your mess.

College Degrees and the Reasons They are So Expensive

Comes a meme: "If your college degree doesn't produce enough value for you to pay it off, it certainly doesn't have enough value for your neighbor to pay it off."

Which brings up a point: Why isn't a college degree as valuable as it once was? Is it because colleges no longer hone in on the things that will make the student successful?  The landscape of jobs has changed and colleges have not adapted to the needs? Or, does a college degree still bring valuable training and certification, but it's just that the price has risen and risen until the skills you pick up in college are not enough to offset the large bill you run up while attaining them?

More important than determining if we should pay off student loans is determining where the system has gone wrong and correcting it. Congress is good at creating investigations to go after political foes. One wonders if they can spend so much time investigating Hillary Clinton and Hunter Biden, why can't they spend some time figuring out what went wrong with our college system.

Congress members investigate each other, but they pass on investigating the issues. They are so busy fighting with each other that they don't have time to solve our problems.

Utilities Will be Glad to Sell Us More Electricity

    About 290 million cars in the U.S. What if every one of them were an electric? Could we produce enough energy to charge them? Could our grid handle the load?

   After all, that would be 1.25 trillion kWh of additional strain. We currently produce about 4.1 trillion kWh. So it would require a 30 percent increase.

   But, consider this: The advent of electric vehicles is not the first time the grid has had to absorb a new product. When air conditioners arrived on the scene, the need for electricity soared -- and America responded. 

  And, there is no reason to believe the utility companies will not answer the call this time, as well. Energy is their product. The more electricity the public buys, the more money that lines their wallets. If you need more energy, they will be glad to toss up a few more power plants. 

   You might notice the grid is getting old. About 70 percent of it is at least 25 years old. That means that in addition to upping the grid's capacity to handle the additional strain of electric vehicles, much of it could use replacing, period.

   No problem -- except it means your electric bill might suffer an increase.

(Index -- Climate change info)

 

Can Kaep Still Play Ball?

   Give peace a chance, and give Kaep a chance.

  Colin Kaepernick is back in the news, Sports Illustrated carrying a story about how he still wants to play and is training and working out five to six days a week. Kaep might be 35 years old, but he still dreams like a kid. Just like a kid dreams of being in the NFL, so does Kaep.

  Truth told, though, the kid has a better chance than Kaep. Never mind that he remains the only quarterback in Division One college football history to accumulate 10,000 passing yards and 4,000 rushing yards. Never mind that led the San Francisco 49ers to the Super Bowl in just his sophmore season in the NFL. Never mind that he boasts the 33rd best passer rating in league history. 

  Never mind that his electric play once made him the face of the NFL.

  Sorry, but talent is not enough. The kids in grade school have a better chance of playing in the NFL someday. Your problem, Kaep, is that you stood up by kneeling down. You stood up for Blacks being killed in the street by police. You took a knee for the National Anthem. You said you were not going to  "show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football," you said.

   Don't you understand? The only time you take a knee is when you're ahead and just running out the clock.

   What were you thinking in the Sports Illustrated article? You told the magazine you still want to play ball; you still dream of going toe-to-toe with the greatest quarterbacks in the world. "I'm going to keep fighting for it because I know I can step on the field and play," you said. "Every workout, every opportunity I've had to show that, the feedback has always been positive. Everything from, 'He's still an elite player' to 'The workout was great; it was better than expected."

  The pundits and the haters had a field day with that, mocking you, saying you're basically crazy to think you're still an elite player. You had good workouts? Right.

  But, give peace a chance, give Kaep a chance. Give the oldest kid of all a break. Put him on a roster, and put him on the field and let him show whether he still has it. "I just want the opportunity to come in, show what I can do on the field," you told Sports Illustrated. "Judge me based on that, not the political bias that you have."

  Sorry, not-so-young man. You had your chance and you kneeled on it. You blew it, and we aren't going to give you another chance to prove you can still play. If we did, you might show us up. You might show us you still can play football. And that would make us look bad. Maybe you haven't noticed it, but this is the National Football League, and we have a National Conference and an American Conference. There isn't a Communist Conference and we don't have room for communists.

  Kids dream of being in the NFL. So does Kaepernick. And he isn't a Russian Communist. He was big enough to stand up for what he believed and you blackballed him and bad-mouthed him for doing that.