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.