Oh, for a Party of Two

When a party of one throws a party
For a party of one
And no one else bothers to come
It's a party for a party of one

Dancing with myself
Passing rounds (of Kool-aid) around
From the right hand to the left
I party till the coming of the sun

When a party of one throws a party
For a party of one
And sets out all the hors d'oerves
And stands in line to get them

The line takes too long
And the party of one grows lonely
And he looks around for the woman
He wishes would have joined him 

(Index -- Poems for Amber, poetry)

We Make the Landlord Pay for the Criminal's Crime?

 My house was raided for drugs. The swat team came in, and said they had enough evidence that it was a meth house. The son of the renter downstairs was patted down and a pipe or somesuch was found in his groin area. He was caught red-handed -- and yet not arrested. The purpose of the raid was to find drugs, and they found them, but then they chose not to do anything about it? I do not understand

I know our prisons are full of drug addicts. I know the system just sets them free. But, if you are not going to arrest someone, what is the purpose of the raid?

I also know the swat teams are federally funded. I don't know if they have a quota on how many raids they need to justify maintaining their funding, but I wonder. At any rate, they come in and raid the place -- not sending anyone to jail -- but are able to count it as a raid. They can mark it up as another meth house being closed, and walk away saying they are tough on crime.

Or, are they tough just on the landlords? The drug addict skips nonchalantly down the street and into a new apartment, leaving the landlord to pay for all his damages. Is this fair? In America we do things this way? We call this justice? Our law enforcement should target the criminals, not their landlords.

In the end, it is I who have been convicted of being a criminal. And, I am not even allowed due process. I do not get my day in court. I am not allowed to argue my case. There is no trial before my place is closed for being a health hazard. I am evicted from my own home before test results even show it is infected.

And, is it infected? Is it a health hazard? I believe there has been some scientific studies indicating links to meth residue on the walls, but I don't believe any study has shown that meth residue on the walls is definitively a health hazard. None. Get on it if you are going to justify shutting my home down because it is a health hazard. You seize my belongings and evict me from my own home and demand that I pay exorbitant fees. I have my doubts that the danger is very serious at all. If you really believed it was a health hazard, wouldn't you advise all the occupants to head straight down to the hospital or at least have them make appointments with their doctors to determine how it might have affected their health? They say the threat is so immediate that they must have you leave the premises at once, and yet they don't require any one of those living there to get a medical evaluation.

I know we want to be tough on crime, but this is not the way to go about it. Penalize the law-abiding citizen and set the criminal free?

Regardless what rules and procedures have been put in place, and regardless whether it was the legislature or health department that created these rules, they do not supercede the Constitution. The Bill of Rights gives the right to be secure in your home. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It makes it illegal for a warrant to be issued without probable cause. A subsequent amendment promises due process. I have been denied each of those rights. I have a copy of the search warrant, and it does not say why they believe drugs were in my home. If there was probable cause, it is not cited, and the judge should have required it before shutting down my home. That's the Constitution telling the judge how to do it.

A copy of the evidence that was found is in poor handwriting and is vague. It does not specify which rooms the items were found in (It says, Rm 1, Rm, 2, and so forth, but I am left to guess which room is Rm 1, Rm2.) In about three cases, it simply says "Para," meaning paraphernalia, but it doesn't say what the paraphernalia was. The search warrant says cotton balls, razor blades, short straws, baggies, balloons, and twisties all count as "paraphernalia." Those are items found in any household and usually are not used for drugs. Yes, take them as evidence, but do not shut down my home on the pretense you found drug paraphernalia just because you found some cotton balls or balloons. And, if those balloons do not have traces of drugs on them, they should be ruled out as paraphernalia. Lidocaine is listed as one of the items found. There must be some tie-in there to illegal drugs, but I do wonder what. You are shutting my home down because you found some lidocaine?

I had to pay about $1,600 to have my place tested -- and more is yet ahead. Every room that was tested came back under the threshold except the HVAC system, and it was barely over. Requiring me to have the testing done and then using those results against me violates the Fifth Amendment. I have been compelled to testify against myself -- and to pay $1,600 in order to have that done. I am required to finance the collection of evidence used against me.

Let Us not Listen to the Deniers and Defeatists

"Renewable energy cannot save us," says a subhead in an article. I let it reverberate in my mind: "Renewable energy cannot save us. Renewable energy cannot save us. Renewable energy cannot save us."

Stop, I say! Are we a doomed society? Renewable energy cannot save us? Nothing can save us? Climate change will win and global warming is inevitable?

Throw-in-the-towel politics. "Renewable energy cannot save us," is the cry of the defeated.

Renewables can save us. There is no valid reason we cannot make the switch. The price is right. The technology is there. If we fail, it will because we wasted the opportunity, we blinked when climate deniers shouted, "Renewables cannot save us."

Let us not be defeatists. Let us not listen to the voices of defeat.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Those Who Go to War Should be Taught the Morals They Must Maintain

Those who go to war should be taught the morals of war.

There is a power that comes with going to war, the power to kill. And, it has long been said, with power, comes responsibility. Every parent that gives a match to a youngster, teaches the dangers of fire. Every teenager wanting to drive is first taught how to drive. We don't just let them hop in the car and tell them, "Go have an accident." Things of danger require training in how to handle them.

And, so should war.

It's a little like all the warning labels we place on everything from insecticides to cigarettes. Where there is danger something can be used wrongly, we post a warning.

Hey, shouldn't being issued a weapon and being told to go kill people come with similar warning?

Permission to kill someone, doesn't mean permission to kill anyone. There is a danger the soldier might take his right to kill so far as to kill the innocent. Scandal lies in this. Does anyone remember the My Lai Massacre? Does anyone remember the embarrassment of how we treated some prisoners during the Iraq War? That is not too far removed, is it? That may not have been murder, but, in addition to teaching not to kill  indiscriminately, soldiers should also be taught how to treat prisoners.

Nothing taught, nothing learned. So, teach them in boot camp, teach them in the National Guard, and teach them in the Naval Academy and in the Army Academy. Teach them when they are returning from leave, and teach them when they are deployed. Drive morality into their heads. In a world where death becomes common, teach them that it must never be common.

I once watched a video of American soldiers in a helicopters hovering over New Baghdad. They spotted some people on the streets, and thought they were carrying weapons. So, they shot 'em. They shot 'em dead. When they saw a van pull up minutes later to haul off the dead, they shot at the van, too. They shot what amounted to hearse drivers.

Yes, it should be part of the training of a soldier to learn that even though he has great power to harm, he or she should not use that power but within the limits given.

It's an Embarrassing Little Amount of Offshore Wind Power

"Offshore wind power is in the early stages of development in the United States" says an entry in Wikipedia.

Wait a minute, the first offshore wind farm powered up in 1991 in Denmark. That's more than 30 years ago. What do you mean offshore wind is in the early stages of development here in the U.S. The U.S. leads the world in everything, first man on the moon, first to use a nuclear weapon (whoops, that's not a good one), etc. 

But, no, we are not the world leader in wind power. Hardly. Not even. Denmark has run away with that title. 

And, what has happened in the U.S.? After all, it is said the nation has the capacity to produce - gulp - 10,800 gigawatts. Denmark would never hang with us if we were to produce that much. President Biden has set a goal of having a fraction of that -- just 30 gigawatts -- by 2030.

And, how much wind power to we have at the moment? An embarrassing - well and ahem - just 0.042 gigawatts of offshore wind power.  Aren't you ashamed of us? I am.

(Index -- Climate change info)

We Need to Build on Progress Started at Block Island, RI

 Offshore wind. It can be an important component in our 21st Century energy portfolio. Already, the Block Island wind farm has made Block Island, Rhode Island, the only U.S. community served solely by wind power.  Prior to the Block Island Wind Farm, the community relied on a diesel-powered plant to supply their energy.

They were accustomed to wiping soot off their windows, and enduring the annoying noise of the diesel generators until Block Island Wind Farm came along.

It became the first offshore wind farm in America.

Our nation needs to step up its efforts for offshore wind projects. "Offshore wind energy generation stands to be one of the best tools in the clean energy transition, moving the United States away from carbon-intensive energy generation and toward a cleaner, safer future," says an article from American Progress. 

(index -- Climate change info)

The Thumper Rule Doesn't Apply to Donald Trump

 I once had the attitude that if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. Thumper's parents taught him that. The Thumper Rule, then. Oh, I realized that there are times when critizing is justified -- even necessary.

So, I took my next tip from marriage counselors. I've never seen one -- never got married -- but, I understand they ask the partners to list some nice things about their spouses.

Did I tell you that this is all leading to Donald Trump. Yes, a long time ago, I castigated him in many of my posts, so figured the only decent thing to do was to try to match the negatives with positives. So, I wrote a few posts lauding him for some of the things he was doing.

Well, enough of that. 

Donald is one of the greatest threats to America. I do not want to say one word that might give someone justification for voting for him. Yes, everyone has a good side, even Donald Trump. But, he's got enough fans without me giving anyone the impression I might think he's okay. His fan base needs to be diminished, not increased. Never has a person run for president who was more dangerous to our nation.