I used to cover the crime beat for a daily newspaper.
In the city of Berkeley (at least back in the mid 90s), a bank was robbed on average of once every two weeks.
Not the same bank, mind you. But it was frequent.
I wanted to report on every one of them - this, to me, was *HUGE* news! Why are the Chron and Examiner not covering these?
I was told by the senior reported who had my gig before me - and then moved on to the Chron - that no one covers them unless something unusual happens.
Back then, banks apparently were robbed all the time. In a significant number of cases, the robber got away with it - usually with no more than a few thousands dollars in cash.
That was deemed an acceptable loss by the banks and their insurance companies. They had alarms and protocols and everything and trained their staff accordingly.
Bank staff, of course, found these robberies insanely stressful and terrifying, but the suits they worked for couldn't have cared less.
No one covered the story because no one was willing to talk about it.
They "fixed" it by minimizing their financial loss. Their "fix" still allowed these things to happen.
They never wanted to go on the record about it because they believed if folks knew how easy it was to rob a bank and get away with it, more would do it.
But I know. And now you do, too. And I'm certain there are plenty of others.
No, I am **not** advocating for robbing banks...
I'm thinking about bank robberies and why they don't like to talk about them because of this article about a former staffer accusing Rep. Eric Swalwell of sexual assault:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/eric-swalwell-allegations-22198271.php
And this passage:
"When rumors about Swalwell’s conduct began circulating online, the woman said she was confused because she had told only a small circle of family and close friends[...] She was petrified [...] that her name had appeared in an opposition research file compiled by a rival campaign."
It's that last bit - "She was petrified that her name had appeared in an opposition research file compiled by a rival campaign."
Based on what I've read - and what I know about people in power - I believe her 100%.
Her fear of it coming out in opposition research, though... that's a unique fear.
But I wonder how those opposition reports sometimes backfire in fucked up ways.
Like... if everyone in politics has a sex scandal... and you're in politics... it must be OK to have a sex scandal.
Because everyone else is doing it.
I mean... look at the Epstein files.
Look at #MeToo.
Decent people can never, will never accept this as OK.
But people seeking power? Well, if everyone else is sexually assaulting people... then they probably can too and use the same tired defenses.
I think the emboldening of the perverts comes from Trump rising through power despite his obvious disqualifications.
The so-called Overton window is only used by perverts.
The rest of us are horrified.
But...
The perverts "run" the countries we love.
They own and control the companies where we work.
They run the masses and liturgies and sermons where we try to connect with the ineffable divine.
If we turn on them... are we not also turning on ourselves?
It's not patriotic to overthrow and replace the government with something that actually helps its people, though it would undoubtedly be an improvement for our country and most of its people.
I keep seeing news stories about the war in Iran, saying "We're losing" or "We're committing war crimes."
Don't put that shit on me. There's no fucking "we" there - there never was.
The American government has never - not once in its entire history - represented the people it claims to represent. It's all lies to protect the oligarchy.
You know this, but you likely still fall prey to "we".
Kill the billionaire politician in your mind.
The only "we" are the people who matter to you.
Rob Zazueta