Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Give Us a Step-by-Step Account of Michael Brown's Killing

   The little bit of news I've had time to catch on Ferguson indicates some authorities are saying, The grand jury had all the evidence, and the jury members were the only ones who heard all the witnesses.
   I'm also hearing anger that the media has had such a frenzy.
   It does seem, though, the public deserves to know more. You have a city overturning police cars and a nation wondering if justice has been served. It would help to have the evidence, so we might agree, if you think we would. Yet, I don't believe the authorities are saying, Okay, here's how we've reconstructed what happened, and then proceeded to give a step-by-step account. Don't give us just the snippets that support the police officer, such as his face being beat to a pulp, and such as Michael Brown rushing him, give us a step-by-step, both-sides-of-the-story account.
   Perhaps many of us, then, would agree the killing was justified. Perhaps not. Either way, the public has a right to know.

Monday, November 24, 2014

Obama's Immigration Plan: All Bang and No Bullet?

   Now, how much will President Obama's new immigration plan really achieve? Will it actually come as advertised, and bring substantial change?
   He didn't promise a soul citizenship. He didn't even promise them they could stay permanently. What, then, is the big deal? Why so much hype? Perhaps what he delivers will be bigger than what his speech suggested, but if the effort doesn't go beyond what the speech discussed . . .
  Then I  am reminded a little bit of my childhood days with a cap gun: all bang and no bullet.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

If He Plays it Right, Obama Might not Need an Executive Order

   As the days begin to lapse away, I take up watch for the online arrival of President Barack Obama's immigration executive order. It's only been two days, and it is a weekend, so it shouldn't be too much of a surprise I don't see it yet.
   Frankly, just listening to his speech, I'm not sure an executive order is even necessary. Nor am I fully sure the changes are going amount to a "new era for immigration," as some have suggested. In his speech, President Obama spoke of doing three things.
   Beefing up resources at the border, to stop illegal entries. I think that could be done without an executive order.
   Making things quicker and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates and entrepreneurs to get through the system. I would guess there might be found ways to speed things up without needing an executive order.
    Allowing those to stay who have been here five years who have children, who pass a background check, who register, and who are willing to pay taxes. Actually, this too, might could be achieved without executive action. They already are not deported until they have gone through the legal process, so there is a window of time we keep them. Today, I read online how this move, indeed, is based on "prosecutorial discretion," meaning the law enforcement officers will simply prioritize their efforts. They'll go after those who are also committing other crimes first. Those getting the reprieves will still get prosecuted, they'll just be allowed to wait.
   "It does not grant citizenship or the right to stay here permanently or offer the same benefits that citizens receive," President Obama said in his speech. "Only Congress can do that. All we're saying is, we're not going to deport you."
   Not going to deport them while they are registered to wait for their deportation, that is.
   Well, prosecutorial discretion is used throughout the nation, by most every agency, and therefore we can assume what is being proposed might not need an executive order.
   It is almost as if President Obama could hear the footsteps of Republicans anxious to sue him if he created law by using an executive order. If he does the things he outlined in his speech, yet does them in simple enough fashion that no new law is necessary, then whether he writes an executive order or not, he is steering clear of those who would seek to sue or impeach him for his efforts.

Friday, November 21, 2014

A New Neighbor does not Equal a Job Being Lost

  Give a job to someone coming from another country, and you take it from someone who is already here. That is the argument.
   But, to me, a new neighbor does not equal a job being lost. The more people a nation has, the more jobs there are. If that were not true, we could deport some of us who were born here to make jobs for the rest of us.
   Add people to a nation, and the added people buy gas, go to movies and eat food, all of which creates jobs. The more people you have, the more gas stations, the more movie theaters, and the more restaurants you need.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

We Must Wait to See What Really Will Happen

   We'll have to wait to see how this plays out. Is it more smoke than fire? Is President Obama not delivering much of a change despite all the hubbub of a build-up? The heart of what he announced was that if a person here illegally has been here five years, has children, and is willing to register and pay taxes, then they can stay . . . temporarily.
   They can already do that, if you account for the fact there are deportation hearings before they are deported. If we just didn't place them in jail while they went through the process, would we be accomplishing just as much as what Obama's "deal" is providing?
   We will have to wait and see how it plays out. Obama's speech was too vague for me.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Where is the Right to Privacy Implied

   So, the decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton -- those famous cases back in 1973 that legalized abortion -- were based on the premise of privacy, that women have a right to privacy protected by the Constitution?
   I join my voice to others. Just where in the Constitution does it mention this right to privacy? I understand that it is only implied. I just want to know where. Where is it implied?

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Where on the Meter with Congress is rBST?

  No, we shouldn't ban an item just because everyone else does, but we sure ought to wonder about the item, and, yes, we ought to see if there is reason.
  So, if the artificial growth hormone known as rBST, which is fed to dairy cows, has been banned in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel and the European Union since 2000, well, we ought to wonder why the U.S. Congress doesn't consider its own ban.
   The rBST opposition says the artificial growth hormone is responsible for many a health woe.
   So, why is it we never hear a drum beating for Congress to take action on rBST? Why is it we don't hear about rBST even being considered by Congress? Perhaps there have been bills. Perhaps I just haven't been in tune enough to hear about them.