Thursday, February 27, 2014

Water Conservation, Navy Showers, Nationally… Avoid Water Rationing...

This is something I’ve wanted to write about for some time now.  Currently, because of the circumstances concerning the Drought in California; it makes sense to me to post it now.

Various internet references put water usage of an average shower between 25 - 50 gallons of water.  The population of California for 2013 is 38.33 million.  So, in the state of California every 1M showers - 25 - 50M gallons of water.  If California could encourage a reasonable number of citizens to follow the following recommendations concerning Navy Showers, it could easily save California hundreds of millions of gallons of water on a daily basis.  Following these recommendations cuts the water usage of each shower to less than half.  This could also help avoid the need for water rationing. 

 Note: 25 Feb 2016... this post was written 27 Feb 2014... please consider, California could have saved hundreds of millions of gallons of water/daily... starting any time these recommendations were adopted... I've made numerous attempts to share this recommendation w/the state of California, w/no response... just for the sake of the personal water usage concerns of Californians, this could make great improvements...
Navy showers are very simple, and, if widely applied could, actually would, be of extreme benefit to all involved... everyone!

Many years ago... there were comments on various, numerous news reports over the years, commentary about the difference that took place quite a few years ago, when it was widely accepted for households to simply ‘turn off the water (when you’re not actually using it), when you’re brushing your teeth.’ That makes perfect sense and undoubtedly has proven to be a good practice.

Navy showers are a water conservation method used by Naval Ships when out to sea, whereas they have to be self-sustaining and conserving potable (clean, drinkable) water is essential.  

Navy showers are simply the same concept.  When you’re taking your shower; you rinse yourself thoroughly, and get your soap wet!  Turn the water off, and soap yourself to whatever extent you normally do.  Turn the water back on and rinse yourself off thoroughly.  That’s it! 

Among the times it has hit me to try and spread this idea has been in the last couple of years when I joined a local Gym.  It’s a regular commercial, franchise Gym which I believe is national, and they have multiple franchises in my city alone. 

As you would expect, there are about a dozen showers or so, in both the men’s and women’s locker rooms. 

Just think if it were recommended that the customers take Navy showers, at least for the most part, consider the savings to the franchise in the cost of water, and the cost of heating the water.  The more hot water used, the more heating it costs.  As, everyone knows, once you leave home, water’s not free!

If this practice were widely accepted and practiced, nationally!  The savings would be somewhat significant individually to the great number of households, and then those savings are multiplied accordingly to the general public.  Both in the cost of water and the cost of electricity in maintaining the water heater.  That or whatever method of fuel is used in maintaining the water heater, gas, oil, elect… 

Also, in places like California, which has such large populations, it would help alleviate the possibilities, probabilities of water shortages, ahead of time.   

It certainly wouldn’t hurt!

One big thing that I’d like to recommend which would help greatly in causing people to adopt this practice.

Over the last several years, I’ve had a number of residences, due to circumstances.  Different showers have different features, or not.  The shower that I have now, and the one that I prefer has a little button, in what you might call the ‘neck’ of the shower; the angled cylinder from the wall to the showerhead.  It’s basically a little ‘shut-off’ and it’s a lot of help.  Starting your shower, you have the water temperature  and velocity set to what you want and you rinse off.  Then, simply push the little button and the water shuts off.  Then when you’re ready, push the button again to restart the water, which will be at the same temperature and velocity that you had already set. 

To me, this is much preferred to having to basically turn the faucet handle to ‘Off’ then having to turn back ‘On’ in which case, you have to re-set the water temperature, velocity, etc.  In which case you end up trying not to turn it on and have either the cold water or the hot water hit you before you get it set.  To me, that’s a big help.

If it were made somewhat standard that all shower heads would include this function, this would encourage a lot of people in taking the Navy shower. 

I’m fully aware that a lot of people would not be interested in taking a Navy shower.  That’s not necessarily a big deal.  Currently, there are probably very, very few people that do.  There are a lot of people, who once they started would get into the habit, and before too long, wonder why they had never done so before.  With a large number of people putting this into practice, it would be considerably beneficial to the individuals and the general public.

I’m not trying to recommend at all that Navy showers be made mandatory, either at home or at the gym; however, if the practice was to become widely known, accepted and practiced, then it would make a great difference. 

Great savings in Water, Energy and Money!!!

I have more to add to this post which I hope to get to before too long, but, I wanted to get this much posted!

Over the last several months, I have tried every way that I can to forward this information to the state of California, with no response.  If this could have been started in California months ago, possibly the current need for water rationing could be less significant.

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Gun Safety

I may revise this at any time... currently, I'm revising the original post on 25 Feb 2016... original post was over 2 yrs prior to this...

I’m not certain exactly how to word this so that it expresses everything I want to say, well enough... In large part, I’m not that much of a gun control advocate!   But, should say at this point... my views have changed somewhat over the last several years, mainly as a result of so many mass shootings... but, additionally... I watch a great amount of true crime, and personally, I believe that guns are too easy for too many people to get.  One good example of this, that specifically illustrates my concern with gun availability, is a show called "The First 48" seen on A & E TV... it documents homicides in several major cities, and mainly concerns 'street crime' this is where the over-availability of guns is really obvious.  

Basically... I have for a long time believed in and supported the right to bear arms.  I also agree with and have for quite some time, the concept expressed in the statement that “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” – it makes sense, it’s really a profound statement that makes a good point.  Look at it this way.  Marijuana and other drugs have been outlawed for quite some time now – for how long has it been the case that because it’s outlawed, no one has any.  In other words, outlawing guns isn’t going to stop people from illegally owning guns.  That is already the case in many places where gun laws are strict.  Therefore, law-abiding citizens, complying with the law won’t have any guns.  At the same time, there are large volumes of illegal guns owned by non-law-abiding citizens.   That’s what happens. 

However, realistic and reasonable regulation is perfectly reasonable, makes perfect sense and is significantly more enforceable.  Such as limiting the purchase of ‘certain’ assault rifles with unreasonable fire power including unreasonably large magazine capacity.  Same for magazine capacity for automatic and semi-automatic hand guns.  Brief but significant examples: The guy who shot Congresswoman Gabby Gifford and several others in Arizona a while back shot 19 people and witness say the shooting lasted 8-15 seconds.  He used a handgun with a clip capacity of 30 bullets, this allowed him to fire off that many rounds in that short a period of time.  He was stopped when he had to try and re-load.  Previously the 30 round clip would not have been available and he would have been limited to a 10 round clip.  Therefore, for this one example, it’s reasonable to expect that after 10 shots he would have had to reload and could have been stopped much earlier, as he was after firing 30 rounds and having to reload then. In fact, stopping him after 10 rounds may well have been easier and more likely, considering that after firing 30 rounds, the victims would have been more traumatized and more injuries would have occurred by then...  That could have been quite a significant difference.  The guy who recently shot-up the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado had a shot gun, a semi-automatic (or maybe automatic) assault type rifle and a hand gun or two.  The most damage could be done with the assault rifle.  It’s said that this rifle jammed after firing a certain number of shots and he had to go to his back-up guns.  Even with this, he killed at least 12 and wounded 58 others.  70 people in all were shot.  This all took place in less than 90 seconds.  If his assault rifle would not have jammed, it’s reasonable to expect that many more could have been killed or severely wounded.  This guy had no legitimate use for this type of weapon.  Same goes for the guy who shot up the crowd gathered to hear Congresswoman Gifford. 

Frankly... I think that it's reasonable to say that no normal citizen has a need for an assault type rifle... they're not needed for hunting... normal weapons should be sufficient for protecting your home, and are likely more suitable...

Starting with the completely reasonable considerations of Limited Magazines, ban on certain Assault type Rifles and Background checks for all Gun Sales, including Private Sales.  These three Simple and Reasonable steps could have saved a lot of grief for a lot of people.  It’s pretty sick and sad that the U.S. can’t grasp this issue and take the reasonable, good sense measures!

One more thing that really should be considered in gun safety regulation... Hollow-Point, Armor Piercing, Cop Killer bullets... normal citizens don't have a need for them... They are incredibly capable of inflicting incredibly more significant damage and have no place in the hands of normal individuals...

I'd like to include one story to illustrate the point of the hollow-point bullets... as mentioned above, I watch a great amount of true crime... shows like Dateline, 48 Hours, 20/20 and those seen on the Investigation Discovery channel... one story, several years ago in Oregon... a young couple, on what was effectively their first date, although they had known each other for some time... out late at night because the guy was studying photography and wanted to take certain pictures of the Moon... In a relatively remote location... out of nowhere, they were confronted by a young man who first asked some directions, or something like that... suddenly, for (obviously) no reason... he just shot both of them, as I remember there were multiple shots fired... she, very miraculously survived.... just barely... very barely... had he used hollow-point bullets... she would have had absolutely no possible chance of survival... again, her survival was very miraculous... she went on to become an attorney, which had not been her path up until that time, and do good things in the community...

The NRA, has the incredibly bad position that No Gun Regulation is Ok!  This makes no sense... it comes under the category of non-sense!

The shooting of the Grade School Kids in Newton, CT, is another good example.  Some of the kids got away when the shooter had to reload.  Frankly, it’s occurred to me that, having see the various pictures and followed information on the shooter, Adam Lanza, that I expect there’s a good chance that he chose a Grade School (something a lot of people had wondered about) because, he probably considered (rightly so) that if he attempted the same at a Middle/High School, he would probably have been taken down earlier by students who are over the age of 6 or 7 years old. 

With all the episodes experienced over the years here in the U.S. it would not necessarily be too surprising if at some point, the Demand for GUN CONTROL will be so overwhelming; that some serious GUN CONTROL, will in fact pass and be put into effect.

If this should happen, you can pretty well thank the NRA!!!!!  The NRA’s position of fighting Any type of Reasonable Regulation whatsoever, will cause more and more fatalities in Schools, Theaters, Malls, etc… will be responsible for the Demand for Stricter Gun Control!!!!  It is reported that even a majority of NRA Members, support Back Ground Checks and certain reasonable regulations; however, the Jack-Assed Leadership of the NRA, will have nothing to do with it.

It’s clear that as opposed to being a civilian organization dedicated to the Rights of individuals in the U.S... that the NRA is simply, purely a LOBBIEST Organization for GUN MANUFACTURERS!!! The NRA is incredibly Well Funded; this is not a grass roots organization concerned with the Civil Rights of Americans.  

The number of people killed by what should be considered a Lack of Reasonable Regulations; will eventually overcome the NRA. They could and should start now, by backing Reasonable Regulations which are supported by a Majority of Americans. The fact that certain regulations are supported by a majority of Americans and even a majority of NRA members, and fought by the NRA, shows you that they represent Gun Manufacturers; not the people of the U.S.

Let me add, one last paragraph. I'm fully aware of the concept and the thinking that Americans have the right to bear arms, and that, protection of the public against a tyrannical Government, is included in the considerations.  At this point in time; anyone who honestly thinks that the U.S. Government is likely to turn against the citizenship and/or who thinks that if they did, that the individual citizens would have a good fight against the strength of the U.S. Government; isn't making much sense!

Thursday, October 03, 2013

Animals have Feelings, Animals have Faces, Animals have Families

I've been quite an animal lover for basically all my life.... the last few years even more so.  With Face Book I get feeds from a lot of animal lover, animal rights organizations and I really relate to that.  In my job that I recently retired from as Customer Service Representative at the IRS for Tax Exempt organizations, I dealt with a lot of people trying to help, save, shelter cats, dogs, horses, etc... I was glad of that...

I've started a face book page with the name mentioned above... please visit if you feel like it... scroll down for various pictures, videos and stories....

Link below... doesn't seem to work as link... copy/paste to browser... thanks... 

Wednesday, October 02, 2013


I think that gerrymandering is really one of the bigger single problems with the US Government, and, something that is easily correctable.  I also think it’s questionable whether gerrymandering is Constitutional or not.  Probably, like a lot of what is done in/by Congress, it’s never been challenged.

Congressional Districts should be established by Population and Geography, and really nothing else.  Gerrymandering to make districts “Safe” for a particular party just doesn’t seem legitimate.


Congress Shutting Down the U.S. Government and the Debt Ceiling.

I Sent following to Dept of Justice (DOJ) 21 September 2013.

Concerning Congress Shutting Down the U.S. Government and the Debt Ceiling.

I expect that Congress has no true authority or right to intentionally shut down the U.S. Gov’t.  Not "Intentionally" by decision, especially not for Political Purpose.

Same for the Debt Ceiling.  I’ll bet, that the Debt Ceiling itself is unconstitutional and that Congress would have no true authority or right to default on the U.S. Debt. Again, not "Intentionally" and especially not for Political Purpose!

However, I expect that neither of these subjects have ever been challenged; and I think they should be. 

I’ve been trying, without success, to get a response and more significantly, start a national dialogue on this subject.  I’ve tweeted many in the media and U.S. Representatives. No responses.

I wish someone would address this.

I added/edited the above just a bit, but, just for enhancement. The main gist of the argument is that Congress can't do something like that "Intentionally" and for Political Purpose.  Another angle is that, I think the argument should be made that Congress is elected to facilitate the functioning of Government.  Not their prerogative to shut it down; same w/debt ceiling.
This is basically a second entry, follow-up to a post I made quite a while ago called "Default by Design" July 15 2011.  Scroll down.

Monday, June 17, 2013

Conflict in Syria; part II

Following my previous comments on the conflict in Syria;

I have a different concept as to how certain international circumstances should be dealt with by the international community.  It's a concept, a thought, a direction to consider.

Take the following examples:  Hafez Al-Assad followed by his son - Bashar Al-Assad, both of Syria; Moammar Khadafi former leader of Libya; Saddam Hussein of Iraq.  These are the most significant and well known examples that I think of.  Hafez Al-Assad in power from 1971 – 2000 upon his death, followed his son, Bashar, currently in power.  These are both “Leaders” of a sovereign nation who are known by the international community to have committed large scale atrocities including voluminous murders and torture on large numbers of the population of their country. 

However, neither of these two are or ever were  “Legitimate” leaders of their country!  They were/are dictators; having unjustly attained power.  While Syria and other countries should be considered as sovereign nations; an illegitimate “leader” of a sovereign nation, does not attain the status of the “Leader of a sovereign nation” – they are illegitimate.  The nation is sovereign, they are not.  An illegitimate ‘dictator’ of a sovereign nation, who, abuses the power that has been usurped in their favor, and conducts murders, torture and other atrocities in order to hold onto power, is in violation of “Crimes against Humanity” and probably even “War Crimes.”

In these two and other cases when it is known among the international community that they are guilty of using the country’s military in attacking, murdering and torture of innocent and helpless civilians; they should be then considered as war criminals. 

They have no claim as the “Leader of a Sovereign Nation” because they are not; they are not legitimate, and have no protection as leader of a sovereign nation. 

Their status is that of “war criminal” and one who is guilty of committing ‘crimes against humanity.’

With this being the case, then they have no protection as a sovereign leader of a sovereign nation; and should be subject to apprehension and justice under international laws. 

If the U.S. and other countries think that the actions of Bashar Al-Assad in using his military against the citizens of that country are unacceptable, and believe that he should not be allowed to continue, then, I believe that under international law, as interpreted through international courts and possibly coordinated through the United Nations, the offender should himself be apprehended. 

With the circumstances as they are in Syria, the U.S., Great Brittan and possibly other countries are considering arming the civilian rebels who are fighting the Assad Government forces, in order to provide a more realistic balance of power and affording them a ‘fighting chance.’  In my thinking, although this would be considered well intended, and/or, better than nothing; I think that it’s not the best option by a long shot.  Doing this, expands the ability of one side to conduct war on the other, while the other side, already has significant power.  Among the people who will die and/or be injured in these actions are numerous innocent and basically helpless civilians; and/or, soldiers who may or may not be personally in support of Al-Assad. 

Following this, the apprehension, taking-out of Al-Assad which should easily be considered legitimate by the international community, would be far and away the best resolution and provide the least casualties. 

Following this, it is up to the people of Syria to form a legitimate government.  The country/people of Syria would be advised of the status of Al-Assad as an international criminal subject to apprehension by the international community.  If Syria is to be considered a sovereign nation, then it is not the place of another country to determine their status or leadership; following the removal of an illegitimate dictator.  The dictator is the offender, he is responsible, offer him the opportunity to surrender, then if not, take him out, with as little damage as possible to the non-responsible civilians or soldiers as mentioned earlier. 

I believe that the circumstances concerning Moammar Khadafi former leader of Libya and Saddam Hussein of Iraq, could have and should have been considered under the same criteria.  Especially considring the case of Saddam Hussein of Iraq, there could have been incredible differences in the number of people who had to die or be injured in order to complete what has been referred to as ‘regime change.’    

This would be far and away preferred to the possibility of further conflict within Syria between civilians and the Govt, especially considering the potential for larger/regional/global conflict as I believe should be  considered, as stated in my post of June 13th, preceding this.

If there are no provisions under international law and or provided by the United Nations, then they should be implemented.   

For the sake of argument; if any of the individuals mentioned above, or any one else who ever comes under similar circumstances has or had in fact been legitimately elected by their country; even if so, once they have committed the atrocities, murders, etc…, as mentioned above, they have given up their status as a legitimate leader of a sovereign nation. 


Thursday, June 13, 2013

Conflict in Syria; Larger/Regional/Global Conflict(?)

I hate to say this.  I’ve been considering this for quite a while.  Frankly, the circumstances concerning the conflict in Syria, really appear, more than anything in memory, to have the potential for a Larger/Regional/Global Conflict. I hope I'm wrong. Neither side is ready to give up or collapse.  Large countries are taking sides.  Countries which will pretty certainly become involved to at least some extent, at least in their wanting their opinion heard - United States, Great Brittan, Russia, Iran, Hezbollah from Lebanon, Israel… Likely at some point, to some extent – Turkey, Jordan, and whatever other regional countries affected somehow or another.  The fact that the U.S. is considering further arming and supporting rebels and the fact that Russia has recently arranged to provide Assad and the Government with Air Defense Systems, and whatever else, is certainly problematic.  If Russia sees us supporting/arming Rebels, will they then decide to back off on their support of the Assad Government?

Not an easy solution in any way.  Arming, supporting rebels(?)  We armed, supported Afghans fighting Russia years ago; they turned into Al Qaeda and the Taliban.  Currently we’ve been in Afghanistan since 2001.  We supported Iraq in its conflict with Iran, they turned into Iraq, where we’ve fought two wars since the early ‘90s, the most recent one being extremely lengthy and costly in every way.

History shows, we tried to stay out of WWII; turned out, that couldn’t be done; and the possibility, we would have been better to have entered earlier.  At least, it seems, it would have been better for the United Kingdom if we had entered earlier.  Hard to tell best course of action under such circumstances!  

Former Asst Secretary of State P.J. Crowley on MSNBC, includes China of those supporting the Assad Govt.  I don't know to what extent, but, it's still something to be considered.  Bob Franken also on MSNBC, mentioned a reference to the Al Qaeda, Hezbollah factor (Sunni, Shiite).  Haven't heard too much mention of Al Qaeda so far, but, their sympathizers, supporters, wannabees....  

Continued, revised, edited as needed...   

Saturday, June 08, 2013

China’s hacking the U.S., the NSA is hacking “us”

From recent news we understand that China is, and has been for probably quite some time, hacking the U.S., I suppose at various levels, probably any level that they can.  Following that, we understand that the NSA (National Security Agency (of the U.S)) is hacking “us” the people of the U.S., also it appears at various levels. 

Why doesn’t the NSA work on the security problem that the country has concerning the circumstances of our being hacked by China? 

As always, I could be wrong about this; at least in part, but, at this point, this is initial thinking.

I also include some concerns that I think may not be the main reason that certain people object. 

Normally I agree with and trust President Obama.  Just not certain about this, for the reasons mentioned.  Certainly he knows more than me, but, there are things to be considered.

For one, as I said starting out, if the U.S. is having problems being hacked by China, and who knows who else; then I would think the NSA would have sufficient resources applied to this matter, rather than whatever amount of time, manpower, money, resources they are applying to gathering personal phone calls and internet use of multi-millions of U.S. citizens.  Frankly, I think that the scope as it’s being described in the news, is, if nothing else, a tremendous, enormous, amazing waste of – ‘Time, Manpower, Money, Resources’ – and I can’t see it otherwise.  Frankly, they’re more likely to only complicate and or even confuse things with a program like this.  More data lost in the shuffle, and an incredible lack of focus on the part of the NSA.  At least to me, I would think that if the NSA, has time, money, manpower, resources to capture the multi-multi-millions of phone records and internet traffic from U.S. citizens, then there must be absolutely nothing whatsoever going on in the world that would normally be considered the type of threat that the NSA, you would think, would be concerned about and paying attention to.  Like the circumstances as reported concerning the hacking by the Chinese.  So, if they don’t have that particular problem completely resolved and in hand, then why are they devoting what must be enormous amounts of money, manpower, etc… to gathering innocent records on innocent U.S. citizens.  To me, at some point, their focus is off!!! 

Following that, there is way too much, tremendous opportunity for abuse of something (information) like this.  Especially if it falls into the wrong hands; which is not impossible.  What if the Chinese hack the NSA, then all the data collected would be at their disposal.

As I remember, quite a while back, before the Al Qaeda attacks of 9/11/01, the NSA had been for some time tracking Osama Bin Laden by his phone use.  Well, that was leaked and Bin Laden then changed his habits and that was the end of that.  So, as any other agency, or any other human run operation, the NSA is not without fault. So there’s always room for abuse or some other misfortune or unforeseen consequences.

Another aspect to be concerned about.  From what I understand, the FISA court itself is quite secret.  I don’t really appreciate that either.  Who knows, is this something that Dick Cheney put together, or what(?) Did GW Bush and D Cheney 'pack' the FISA court?

In addition to considerations as mentioned above; I’d recommend other considerations as follows.  What I hope to be the subject of another post, at some  point, which I’d like to summarize here: given the circumstances concerning the confidential leaks attributed to Pvt Bradley Manning from the U.S. Army and the information revealed by civilian Ed Snowden, I think it should be considered that, there is no guarantee that absolutely anyone and everyone who has the appropriate clearance and access is someone who is completely trustworthy and has the character, maturity, professionalism and discipline to be trusted with any information to which they may have access.   

That said, this is another area whereas the average American may have reason to fear abuse of what should be considered personal, privileged information which they would like to think is not going to fall into hands of someone who could potentially abuse it.  Or, if not abuse it themselves, possibly just act irresponsibly, unprofessionally enough that they inadvertently make the sensitive information available to someone else, who then, may be disposed to abusing such information. 

This post is currently continued and edited on an ongoing basis.