Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Am I Passing on Opportunity to Speak Up Against Abortion?

Maybe instead of seeking their vote, I should seek to change their minds -- not about who to vote for, but about abortion.

I pass out 7-8 flyers, alternating them as I go door to door  . . .  and one of them is against abortion. Time after time, today, I came to a door and thought, "This is probably someone who favors abortion. And instead of giving them the abortion flyer which was at the top of the pile, I reached in and got a different one.

Which makes sense if I want their vote. But, I'll be lucky to get 5 percent of the vote. I'm not going to win. Maybe a better use of my time would be to try to change people's mind about abortion. I have a rare opportunity. A person cannot normally walk up to someone's door and try to persuade them to change their stand on abortion. "Oh, I'm just out trying to change everyone's mind on this. Hope you're not offended."

But, if the person out knocking doors is running for office on an anti-abortion platform, he has a reason to discuss the topic. It's an opportunity to persuade that rarely comes along.

In a way, trying to persuade them to change their minds is like crying repentance unto them, as a good portion of those who favor abortion are also those who have had one. (Some say 40 percent of all women will have an abortion at some point in their lives.) I do not say they have sinned. God be the judge of that. Those who have abortions have them for good reasons, and only God knows their heart, to judge them. But, I do know abortion is wrong, and I do know it would be good to persuade them against it, in hopes of reducing it.



Follow Script Supreme Court Set Forth, and Abortion Might Have an End
   Forty years have swept away. Fifty-four million lives have been lost. Still, no state steps forward to save the unborn, simply by following the formula provided by none other than the Supreme Court justices, themselves.
   Simply pass a statute saying a fetus is a human
   How long after the Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade would it be before a state stepped forward to define the unborn as human? One year? Two? Surely with so much of the population being against abortion, somewhere a state would quickly pass such a law, reaching out to the unborn and claiming them as humans.
   We now approach 40 years. Still, no "personhood" statute. Jan. 22, 2013, will mark the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.  Even if you grant that not all pro-lifers believe a personhood statute is the answer, why would we not pass such a law? What harm would it do to define a fetus as human? Science says the fetus is human. Can a law be wrong for simply stating what science is now acknowledging? 
   Perhaps in this election, a voters initiative in some state, somewhere, will be passed. Those words from the Court justices back in the Roe v. Wade deliberations portend that such a state statute will come. Justice Potter Stewart looked at the plaintiff's attorney and asked, "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the 14th Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?" 
   "I would have a very difficult case,"  came the reply. 
   Chief Justice Warren E. Burger asked, "Could Texas constitutionally, in your view, declare that by statute that a fetus is a person for all constitutional purposes?"
  "The state could obviously adopt that kind of statute, and then the question would have to be adjudicated," Roe's attorney replied.
   So, why has it taken 40 years? And, still no such state law? Where is Utah and why doesn't Utah pass such a law? As Roe's lawyer said, a state could obviously adopt this kind of statute, and then it would have to be adjudicated. It is very possible it would be adjudicated all the way back to the Supreme Court.
   And Roe v. Wade would be overturned.
   Why are we not doing this thing? Why are we not passing such a law?

More Lives Lost to Abortion than to Leading Cause of Death
   If we wanted to the greatest good, and were to measure it by number of lives saved, what one thing would we do?
   End abortion.
   More lives are lost to abortion than to the leading cause of death, maybe by twice, in fact. In 2009, only 599, 413 deaths were attributed to heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the United States. Compare that to abortion. It is said 1.2 million lives are lost each year to abortions. Abortion takes a life about every 30 seconds. 

1 in 5 of Us Do Not Make It Out Alive
   What if 41 percent of us didn't make it out alive? In New York City, it can be argued, 41 percent do not make it out alive.
   Out of their mother's womb, that is, not out of New York City. (Although some are going to suggest I would be quite right to say out of NYC.) Forty-one percent of all pregnancies in NYC end in abortion, if statistics are accurate. Nationwide, I believe, the mortality rate is about 20 percent. So, 20 percent nationwide "don't make it out alive."


Tuesday, October 30, 2012


Different messages are on the back of these flyers. If the one you receive either  resonates or upsets, and you want to discuss it, call 801-566-4023. Leave a message, as the ringer is off, and I will call back.

John Jackson for House District 44

You've heard more from my opponents, Tim Cosgrove and Christy Achziger, but I beg your vote, as well, and suggest you might like me more than either of them if you are not against significant, beneficial change. Now, electing an independent would be significant, of itself. Although more Utahns register as independents than as Republicans and Democrats combined, never has an independent been elected to the Utah Legislature. If you should like, change that, make history. The father of your country warned against parties, anyway. Second, it would be significant to elect someone who is not accepting campaign contributions. I just don't think it good that sometimes the very people who contribute are waiting in line after the election, wanting legislation that will favor them. I won't take their money. If I don't take the money now, I won't have to worry then whether I am being influenced by a desire to return a favor. We have campaign disclosure laws because we can see this danger. If such a practice (taking money from those who want influence) is wrong, then elect someone who won't take the money. You will get just as much of a prudent, thoughtful, reasonable and well-reasoning public official in me as you will in the other candidates. So, why not vote for me? Do it, and feel good about this being the reason you picked me to vote for. It can be argued by other candidates that they are not going to be influenced by any of their contributors, or that while they take contributions, they are not going to take it from any who would harmfully influence them. I can only say that even the most benevolent of causes should be supported without the influence of money. Now, not taking money leaves me the poorest of candidates by far, but perhaps I would not have received many contributions anyway, as many contribute solely based on whether you are Democrat or Republican. At any rate, please vote for me despite the lack yard signs and mailers.


Changes? Would it be significant if we changed it so you could vote for anyone you want in Utah? Surprise, surprise, you can't do that, right now. If you write in a vote, it has to be for a write-in candidate registered with the state. Otherwise, your vote will be trashed.  I will work to change that.

Changes? I don't know how the other candidates stand on abortion. I would only be guessing they are against it. I can only say, you can elect someone who opposes it, but who might not be planning to do anything about it, or you can elect someone who will, and perhaps in a very meaningful way. 

Changes? Would it be significant to overhaul the prison system? Significant changes should be made, big enough changes that I don't know whether I would muster the votes to bring them about. Still, I will try, and if the bill does pass, Utah will be the better for it. I believe every prisoner should work, should have a support system providing love, and should be retrained in life skills and good behavior.

Monday, October 29, 2012


More Lives are Lost to Abortion than to the Leading Cause of Death

If we wanted to the greatest good, and were to measure it by number of lives saved, what one thing would we do?

End abortion.

More lives are lost to abortion than to the leading cause of death, maybe by twice, in fact. In 2009, only 599, 413 deaths were attributed to heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the United States. 

Compare that to abortion. It is said 1.2 million lives are lost each year to abortions. Abortion takes a life about every 30 seconds. 



Define the Unborn as Living, and See What Happens

Define the unborn as a living human by law, and see what happens. They call such efforts "personhood" bills and no state has yet adopted one. Am I amazed? Yes! There is enough opposition to abortion, nationwide, that some state will surely step forth and pass such a bill. Perhaps a referendum somewhere will win in this very election.

Why would it be so significant? As the Supreme Court weighed on what to do in Roe v. Wade, Justice Potter Stewart turned to the Roe's lawyer and asked, "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the 14th Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?" 

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wondered out loud that a state might declare by statute that a fetus is a person.

The court handed down Roe v. Wade Jan. 22, 1973, so 2013 will mark the 40th anniversary. It would be wonderful to mark the year with a personhood bill.



1 in 5 of Us Do Not Make It Out Alive

What if 41 percent of us didn't make it out alive? In New York City, it can be argued, 41 percent of everyone doesn't make it out alive.

Out of their mother's womb, that is, not out of New York City. (Although some are going to suggest I would be quite right to say out of NYC.) Forty-one percent of all pregnancies in NYC end in abortion, if statistics are accurate. That's means that out of all their babies, they trash almost half.

Nationwide, I believe, the mortality rate is about 20 percent. So, 20 percent nationwide "don't make it out alive."




Today, we conduct a little test. On the back of these flyers, I'll have different political writings, offering thoughts on things I think could be changed in the world around us. You be so kind, if you will, to call me up and say which flyer you got and whether it helped persuade you to vote for me. I won't answer, so it will go through to my voice mail and you won't have to say who you are. My number is 801-566-4023.

John Jackson for House District 44

You've heard more from my opponents, Tim Cosgrove and Christy Achziger, but I beg your vote, as well, and suggest you might like me more than either of them if you are not against significant change. Electing an independent would be significant, of itself. Although more Utah voters register as independents than as Republicans and Democrats combined, never has an independent been elected to the Utah Legislature. Never. If you should like, change that, make history. The father of your country warned you against parties, anyway, so why not occasionally elect an independent? Second, it would be significant to elect someone who is not accepting campaign contributions. I just don't think it the best thing that sometimes the very people who contribute are there after the election, wanting legislation. I won't take their money. If I don't take the money now, I won't have to worry then whether in the back of my mind a desire to return a favor is coloring my voting on legislation. After all these elections, year in and year out, for once, elect someone who refuses to take that money. It leaves me the poorest of candidates by far, but perhaps I would not have received many contributions anyway, as many contribute solely based on whether you are Democrat or Republican.

At any rate, take this piece of paper, read it, and vote for me. I haven't money for fancy mailers. I haven't money for the lawn signs. For once, vote for someone who is the best candidate on the ballot, but cannot win your vote by spending money. He doesn't have it. (Truth be told, I might could spend a little more than I have, but I like the notion of being elected without money.)

What you'll get:

Would it be significant if we changed it so you could vote for anyone you want in Utah? Surprise, surprise, you can't do that, right now. If you write in a vote, it has to be for a write-in candidate registered with the state. Otherwise, your vote will be trashed.  I will work to change that.

I don't know how the other candidates stand on abortion. I would guess they are against it. I can only say, you can elect someone who opposes it, but doesn't plan on doing anything about it, or you can elect someone who will, and perhaps in a very meaningful way. Way back when the Supreme Court was considering Roe v. Wade, Justice Potter Stewart said the attorney bringing the abortion cause before them would have an almost impossible case if it were established that the unborn fetus were a person. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wondered out loud what would happen if the State of Texas (Roe v. Wade came out of Texas) adopted a statue saying a fetus is a person. So, pass such legislation, and hope it leads to a case going right back up the ladder and overturning Roe v. Wade.

Would it be significant to overhaul the prison system? Significant changes should be made, big enough changes that I don't know whether I would muster the votes to bring them about. Still, I will try, and if the bill does pass, Utah will be the better for it. I believe every prisoner should work, should have a support system providing love, and should be retrained in life skills and good behavior.

Saturday, October 27, 2012


Here's the part of 'Illegal' I Don't Understand

What part of the word "illegal" don't I understand?

I don't understand the part about why coming to America should be illegal, or the part about why joining family members here should be illegal, or the part about why it should be illegal to work, even when no one else wants the job.

I don't understand the part about having a welcome sign at our country's entrance, saying, Give us your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, but when they arrive, we tell them to seek their refuge elsewhere.

I don't understand how it is suppose to be patriotic to oppose these people when one of the reasons listed in the Declaration of Independence for declaring war is that the king was restricting immigration. 

I don't understand how one of the freedoms this nation once enjoyed was the freedom to come here, but now it is not.

I don't understand how locking people out has anything to do with freedom.

I don't understand the part about them being normal, simple, everyday people as long as they stay in Mexico, but if they drift too far to the north, they become fierce criminals, capable of destroying our nation if allowed to remain.

I don't understand the part about how poor people coming to America qualifies as an invasion.

I don't understand how it is that the Declaration of Independence speaks of certain inALIENable rights, yet the only people we won't grant those rights to are called, coincidentally, aliens.

No, I don't understand word one about it, and since there is only one word in "illegal," I guess that means I don't understand the whole of it. What part don't I understand? What part do I understand?!

Friday, October 26, 2012


Train Up the Prisoner in the Way He Should Go, and When He is Out, He Will Not Depart From It

The ways of dealing with children should be the ways of dealing with prisoners.

I think of the adage found in Proverb 22:6. "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Much of the reason that this is true, is that we are what we practice. If we do a thing over and over, it becomes a part of us. Just as a child can develop good habits through practice, so can a prisoner. The prisoner has no chance of developing good habits, though, if he is not taught them.

Having a criminal in prison should be seen as an opportunity to retrain the person. It is not only opportunity to redirect him away from whatever offense he committed, but to retrain him in being a good person, period. In some cases, the criminal never received this training while a child, and this becomes perhaps the only chance society has to go back and provide it after the fact.

So, teach them not to taunt others, not to gossip, and not to lie. In part, do this by monitoring their conversations with their visitors, a thing we do anyway. But, instead of keeping the prisoner on one side of the window and the visitors on the other, search the visitors well, then let them in to work or play or watch a good show with the prisoner. We have considered it part of their punishment that they cannot have such contact. Why not, instead, consider it their punishment that while they can have such interaction, they have to conduct themselves properly while at it? This way, they learn the life skills we want them to have when they get out of prison. Playing, and working, and learning together: They will be taught how to conduct themselves in the same activities they will be involved in once they get out.

And teach them and give them role models. Give them books to read that teach morals, and offer examples of people doing right. Limit their videos and movies to those that teach. If there are things they didn't learn as children, such as how to read, teach them.

We have in our hands a person who often lacks in such skills, and needs to be trained on them. They cannot be trained en for them moment. To some, it may seem we have no right to require a prisoner to do such things as speak kindly to everyone he deals with, at point of punishment. No taunting of others, no gossiping, and no lying allowed. Well, may the correction be given in a loving manner, not with spite. The prisoner is in jail for punishment, and has lost his rights while there
It might be a little much to say, "Train up the prisoner in the way he should go, and when he is out, he will not depart from it." You aren't beginning with a clean slate like you are with a child. You are retraining instead of training for the first time. Still, there is truth in the sentiment. If you get a prisoner doing good while in prison, he will be much more likely to be that person when he gets out.

Teach them and give them role models. Give them books to read that teach morals, and offer examples of people doing right. Limit their videos and movies to those that teach. If there are things they didn't learn as children, such as how to read, teach them those things.

If we really believe they can change, if we really believe they can rehabilitate, then we should be retraining them in the very same arts we train children in.

Not in all cases will this apply, for we deal with a clean slate when we deal with children, but it well might be that we will find it not so untrue to say, "Train up the prisoner in the way he should go, and when he is out, he will not depart from it."

If the process for training children is tried and true, and works, why would we not consider using it? if we are really going to retrain them, is there any other way as effective as how we train children?


Give that Prisoner a Job

Now, here's one of the ills of our society, something we sometimes do wrong.

Would you agree that prisons shouldn't be just about punishment; they should also be about rehabilitation? Would you agree that the things you want them to do once they leave the prison are things they should practice doing while in prison?

Every prison should have a work program, one that includes all the inmates. If work is something we want the person to do once out of prison, they should be doing it while in prison. They shouldn't have a free pass in life, just sitting in jail not working. I shake my head in mild amazement that we have prisons without work. Why have them practicing a life pattern of laziness? This is rehabilitation?

But pay the prisoner, for goodness sake, and pay him (or her) a fair and equitable wage. Many of our prisoners are providers for their families. Why take that away from them? Providing for a family is a good thing. It is something we want to engender in them. It is part of being productive members of society, which is what we want them to be.

They should be paid respectable wages for their work. From the wages they earn, have them pay for their lodging, same as we all work and pay for our housing. Prison housing being more expensive than normal housing, we should make sure how much they pay does not keep them from netting enough to give to their families. Supporting a family is a good thing. Let's let them do that.

Never a prisoner without work. Even the person who is in for life, we should want to become a better soul. 

Of all people in our society, these are those we should make sure are getting jobs. Many enter our prisons not gainfully employed. So, having them in prison becomes opportunity to teach them to work. If you want a person to be something, it is said, treat them as though they already are that person, and they will be much more likely to become it.

If ever our nation gets around to prison reform, this should be a part of it.
Love the Prisoner, or Face Him Again

    If you would change a person, you must love him first.
   What is that phase? I don't care how much you know until I know how much you care? And, what is it that all those studies on loving and hugging children show? That they grow up to be better adapted? Well, the need for love doesn't stop just because you are no longer a child. And, there is no part of society we should want to change more than those who are in prison. 
   So, where is the love?
   When our prisons are created -- when the functions of the prison officers are assigned and the programs are all set in place -- how often is the element of love even considered? Confinement is the concern. As long as we have confinement, we have a prison. To the large degree, it is punishment we seek for the criminal to have. Love becomes important, though, if we decide punishment is not enough, that we also want the criminal to be rehabilitated. Now, though we often do seek rehabilitation, I do not see love as being an integral element that we infuse into our correctional system when our jails are established.
   It should be. A correctional facility should not be master planned that does not address how the prisoner will receive love. In Utah, we are fortunate to have volunteers go to the state prison, and we are fortunate that the prison is located so close to our large population, so it is easily accessible to the volunteers and encourages them to come.
   Studies have indicated recidivism is reduced when the prisoner is loved. 
   Love the prisoner, then, or face him again.

Prison is Where Criminals Go to get Their Ph.D.

   Does our prison system unwittingly harden criminals, by bringing them all together in one place where they can interact with each other?  Do they come out more inclined toward crime than when they went in?
   If so, we should surely change our prison system.
   I ask, is it wise to put people together who are criminals? Shall we let them establish friendships that might be extended once they are out? Shall we let them discuss with each other their ideas for crime, sharing thoughts on what works and what doesn't? Shall we let them teach each other best methods? Yes, this is a wonderful little idea, putting them together so they can share trade secrets, network with each other, and come out new and improved, intensified criminals.
   To learn a life of crime, go to prison.
   Our prisons are incubators for crime. If a person wants to learn about science or law or journalism, or English or music or art, he can go to college. But, if he wants to learn about crime, he can go to prison. Prison is where the criminal goes to get his Ph.D.
   You are no better than the company you keep, it is said, and what we are rubs off on each other. So, why, if we really seek rehabilitation for the criminal, do we put them in with company we don't want them to keep? 
   It is a prison system that never was thought thoroughly through.

1 in 5 of Us Do Not Make it Out Alive

What if 41 percent of us didn't make it out alive? In New York City, it can be argued, 41 percent of everyone doesn't make it out alive.

Out of their mother's womb, that is, not out of New York City. (Although some are going to suggest I would be quite right to say out of NYC.) Forty-one percent of all pregnancies in NYC end in abortion, if statistics are accurate. That's means that out of all their babies, they trash almost half.

Nationwide, I believe, the mortality rate is about 20 percent. So, 20 percent nationwide "don't make it out alive."



  A Conversation With My Government
   "Hello, government. I'm calling about your decision to give those three sisters a year's stay here. You know, the three who were to be deported in a week."
   "Yes."
   "Yes. I need you to answer me some questions. I need to know which laws are being used, so I'll know if you're going about this all in the right way."
   I see. And, may I ask who you are?"
   "Well, I'm John Jackson."
   "Are you a member of the media?"
   "No, I'm John Jackson."
   "You've reached our media relations department. I'm afraid you need to be a member of the media if I'm to help you."
   "I see. Well, I looked through your website and you don't have anyone else I can contact. Yours is the only phone number the agency lists."
   "Yes."
   "I'm one of your stockholders, so I thought maybe it would be okay if I called, even if I'm not a member of the press."
  "What do you mean you are a stockholder? Actually, the government doesn't have stockholders."
  "Actually, it does. Well, maybe not in the strict sense, but this is my government and I run it."
  "I see. I wonder who appointed you to such a high position."
  "Abraham Lincoln did."
  "Abraham Lincoln?"
  "Yes, he was giving something called the Gettysburg Address and he said something about government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Well, that would be me."
   "I see."
   "Ever since then, I've pretty much thought of this as my government."
   "I see. Well, you're not a member of the press. Do you realize what a nightmare it would be if we tried to take calls from everyone in the public, answering every question they have? We simply don't have that time."
  "Make time. I'm one of your stockholders."
   "Have you filed a Freedom of Information inquiry?"
   "Too much paperwork. I'm a stockholder. I'll just call you up and you'll answer my questions. It's a lot simpler that way."
   "I see. If you were a member of the press, I'd be glad to help you."
   "What if I were a congressman, or a mayor or head of a government agency?"
   "Yes, I suppose I could help you then."
   "Well, those are my people. Think of them as my minions, if you will. I tell them what to do."
   "I see."
   "I don't like the way you think you only have to answer to them. And, I especially don't appreciate the way you think you only have to answer to the press."
   "Well, yes, like I said, we've only got time to answer to so many people. The press represents you in getting information."
  "I didn't elect them. I never gave the press permission to take anything from me."
  "And, what are they taking from you?"
   "My right to talk to you, to get some answers. You said you'd help me if I were a member of the press, but since I'm not, you're not going to help me."
   "But, this is media relations . . ."
   "The press doesn't run this country. I do. So, I'm going to have to ask you to quit answering so much to them and start answering more to me."
   At that point, the government hung up on me. I was left thinking that if government truly were government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then, yes, it would make information more accessible to us, the public.



Washington's 'Warnings of a Friend' Against Political Parties

   The America of today, deeply divided by political parties, is the America George Washington warned against.
   Actually,  he warned against political parties, period, warning us "in the most solemn manner." 
   And we, collectively as a nation, left his words at the podium where he offered them, walking away from that farewell address to join into political parties. And, we've been in them ever since, often having as much loyalty to them as we do for the nation, itself.
   If Washington's words, by chance, could echo down through the years, what would they tell us? They would tell us that for governments, the spirit of political parties "is truly their worst enemy."
   He said, "worst enemy," but we didn't listen. We didn't listen then, and we're not listening now.
   In that great address, Washington warned of "the danger of parties."
   He warned "against the baneful effects of the spirit of party."
   He warned against the "alternate domination" of one party over the other, "sharpened by the spirit of revenge."
   He warned that their fights might result in "the most horrid enormities" and become, in themselves, "a frightful despotism."
   He warned against "combinations and associations," including groups championing the interests of the various regions of the country.
   He warned of "artful and enterprising" people being in such groups.
   He warned such combinations and associations could "become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men" would rise to power.
   He warned such groups could cause divisions among the people. Their "designing men may endeavor to excite" differences among the people, he said.
   He warned that parties "tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together."
    As if he could foresee the campaigns of our day, he warned such groups would "misrepresent the opinions and aims" of others.
   He warned that such groups would "put in place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party."
   He said the spirit of party, "is a spirit not to be encouraged." 
   He closed his comments on parties by saying, "A fire not to be quenched, it (the spirit of parties) demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
   Washington characterized his warnings "as the warnings of a parting friend." His farewell address is replete with these warnings against political parties. They are warnings that have gone unheeded. Instead of discouraging parties, we have embraced them.
   Perhaps there remains room to speculate whether Washington would not have had us join parties at all, nor to have had us run for office on them. We only know he spake so gravely ill of them in his farewell address, and said a wise people would "discourage and restrain" the spirit of party.
   And, we know he, himself, walked the talk. He is the only president ever elected without a party.
   

Wednesday, October 24, 2012


You Cannot Vote for Just Anyone You Want

   You cannot vote for just anyone you like in Utah. Nope, can't do it. Your vote won't count.
   You can only vote for candidates registered with the state. If you write in someone's name, your vote will be trashed. It won't count unless that person is registered as a write-in candidate.
   Are we to be told who we can and cannot vote for? Are we to cast our vote only from a state-approved list of candidates?
   I guess I do think this is wrong. A small thing, in ways, but in principle, it is a big deal. Isn't voting for whomever we choose a basic American right? Somehow, I assumed we've had this privilege ever since Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and a few others sat down and drafted the documents making this the free-est nation on earth.
   I say, change the law. This is America. We deserve not only the right to vote, but the right to vote for anyone we choose.

The Children's Bill of Rights

If you were to write a Bill of Rights of the Child, what would you put in it? Here's a draft, of what one might include:

Be it enacted, that we, the people of America, acting in the interest of children, do hereby declare that these rights will be extended to all the children of our nation.


1. That unborn children have the right to life.


2. That children have the right to two parents, one being female and the other male. We pledge to hold divorce to a minimum, even enduring uncomfortable relations with our spouses, in order to provide our children this right.


3. That children have the right to a stable home, where parents love and show affection for each other, a home united, not divided. We pledge to hold divorce to a minimum, even enduring uncomfortable relations with our spouses, in order to provide our children this right.


4. That children have the right to our love. We pledge to love our children, to tell them we love them and to treat them with love. We pledge to give them the positive re-enforcements to make them feel appreciated and worthwhile in life.


5. That children have the right to our care. We pledge to provide them food to keep them healthy, and a home to keep them comfortable and clothing to keep them warm. We pledge to make the sacrifices required to provide them care and comfort.


6. That children have the right to not be abused. We pledge to never unduly harm our children, neither through mental abuse, nor physical abuse, neither through sexual abuse nor emotional abuse.


7. That children have the right to respect. We pledge to not treat them as subjects, but as a heritage and gift, as a trust and a treasure.


8. That children have the right to learn what is right and moral, to learn to treat other people respectfully, and to have values. We pledge to teach our children these things.


9. That children have the right to education. We pledge to take advantage of the formal education opportunities of our land, to keep them in school, and to engender in them a love of learning.


We, the undersigned, therefore, acting of our own accord, do so proclaim these rights, with this document being signed by every parent, and every adult who should so wish to enter their signature. We proclaim these things in solemnity, not attaching government punishments, but placing our names before the world, that each of us will so treat our children in accordance with the promises of this document.

A Tale of Saving the Starving People of Africa

The jobs report came in, but not the one I was looking for. "No," I said. "I need the report for eastern Africa."  


My secretary scrambled to find one, but couldn't. When she had finished searching, I looked up from my desk and replied, "Well, then, for all we know the unemployment there is as high as any place on earth." I paused, then added. "Tell me, are there not 13 million people starving there?"


My secretary scurried off to look that up, but I quickly called her back. "No, no," I said. "That won't be necessary. I already know it has been 13 million. If the number has changed, the pertinent thing is that it is a terrible, devastating amount. Tell me, Jurrultenna" (for Jurrultenna was her name), "Would it be helpful if we gave these people jobs?"


She gave me a blank look.


I rose from my chair, looked out the window and took a puff on my cigar. (Actually, I didn't puff on my cigar, for I don't smoke. But, to make the story read better, we'll leave that in.) "Jurrultenna, a good part of the problem in eastern Africa is that they are having droughts. Their farmers plant the crops and nothing comes up. Now, after a few years, you'd think they'd learn not to rely on those crops. Instead of starving while they wait for the weather to change, they ought to go down the street to the auto plant and take a job there and make a living that way."


She gave me another blank look, for it was obvious there were no auto plants in Ethiopia.


"Yes," I said, as I walked slowly toward the door. "Somebody just the other day was telling me that if you give a man a fish, he will eat it and return hungry the next day, but, if you teach him how to fish, he will be catching his own food that very next morning." I paused, and then continued, "Jurrultenna, the next morning has come. We will begin immediately on construction of a new auto plant in Somalia. We will be opening a grocery store there, as well, so when they get their first paychecks, they will have a place to buy their food. Oh, and we'll sell bottled water, since their wells are all so dried up."


As I got to the door, I stopped and smiled, and turned back to her. "Actually, Jurrultenna, I might be kidding about it being an auto plant. I'm not anxious to take jobs out of the United States. So, whatever product we do manufacture, we will not be selling it back to an American market. I have not studied the economy there, to know what products Africans are importing. But I shall this afternoon, and we will pick something that is being imported into the richer Africa nations from Europe and then we will make that same thing there, in Somalia, and export it to these other African nations."


I then strolled out my office door, wondering if I had truly just come up with a way to save the people in Africa from starving. As I walked down the stairs, I muttered, half-believing myself, "The problems of the world, they really aren't so difficult."


Monday, October 22, 2012

Put More Money Into Education to Avoid Being Last

Yes, I do think we should pony up, and give more money to education. We have been decrying ourselves for years for being last in the nation in per student spending, so let's take care of the matter and raise taxes enough to get more money into education. (If there is a way to divert more money without raising taxes, let's do that, but if not, raise 'em.)

But, not much.

Here's why: We are doing it, giving more money to education simply because we are not spending as much as the other states, not because we have a lousy education system and it needs more money to make it better. We rank 13th in the nation in ACT and SAT scores. Of the states having at least 95 percent of the students participating in the ACT, we rank second.

Who knows, maybe putting more money into education will help us rank even higher in the ACT and SAT scores. That would be good. But the real reason for putting more money into education is that we have been beating ourselves up for years about having the largest classrooms in the nation (23 students per class, is it?) and the lowest per student outlay ($6,064, is it?).

http://www.deseretnews.com/top/777/39/Utah-Which-state-has-the-highest-average-ACT-and-SAT-scores.html

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Political Contributors Come in Types

    Political contributors come in types. It is Type 4 that is dangerous.
   Type 1 is the garden variety, doing no harm at all. These are the folks having a friend running for office who decide to help the friend out. Bless Type 1, for helping their neighbor.
    Type 2 are the ones approached about giving donations, who become sufficiently persuaded of the candidate that they do, indeed, lend some financial assistance. Bless Type 2, for contributing to a cause.
    Type 3 are the party loyalists. A good chunk of money comes from these folks. You need only to belong to the same party as them and they will readily offer up their assistance. Bless Type 3 -- I guess, maybe -- for giving to their party.
    Then, we have Type 4. These are all those with an agenda. These are the PACs and the corporations and the lobbyists of every sort. These are the pro-choicers and the pro-lifers, the education associations and the art guilds, These are they who bring you their money . . . in hopes you will remember their good and worthy causes (and many are, indeed, good and worthy).
    I think back to a man, owner of a construction firm doing business with the state, who contributed to a campaign. He was from out of state. Now, I ask you, what interest would a man in Colorado have in a race in Utah? He was not a personal friend of the candidate. Since when does one rich man just walk up and give another rich man (well, maybe not rich, but most politicians are often well enough off) some money? The only reason he would be offering up money is because he expected there might be a return on his investment.
    Don't bless Type 4. These are they who make it so legislation is bought and sold, who turn it into a commodity. These are they who bribe -- legal bribery, but bribery just the same; bribery that isn't called bribery, but bribery still the same.
    No, don't bless Type 4.


VOTE JOHN JACKSON FOR HOUSE DISTRICT 44
Call 1-801-566-4023 or visit the website newsasnewstravelsfast.blogspot.com
Vote for John Jackson, independent, over Christy Achziger, Republican, and Tim Cosgrove, Democrat.

Friday, October 19, 2012

Here's M'First Campaign Flyer


Vote for the Penniless;
Get Representation Money Can't Buy. 
   Okay, I'm not penniless. But my campaign is much poorer than those of the other two House District 44 candidates, Tim Cosgrove and Christy Achziger. I have chosen to not accept political contributions. As a result, I will not have the lawn signs and mailers (though robocalls are so inexpensive, I might use them) the other candidates have. The Beatles might have been persuaded money could not buy them love, but they should have tried running for public office without money. Money does buy votes. Being that as it may, I do not think it healthy that some of the same people who donate money turn up after the election seeking legislation, favors, if you will. I think of an out-of-state contractor who gave money to a candidate. Now, why would a person donate to a candidate in another state, to a person he didn't personally know, unless he hoped for a return on his investment? The candidate defended the system, saying there was nothing quid pro quo going on. I say, it remains wrong. This is your opportunity, should you wish to snap it up, to elect someone who will be every bit as good of a representative as the other two, yet who won't leave open the chance a political contributor will come knocking for a favor down the line, after the election.  I won't take that money, won't leave open the dilemma of whether the gift might influence my voting in the Legislature. Oh, and did I say an independent has never been elected to the Utah Legislature? In a day of great political rancor, why not make this the first time? Make your vote one that helps change history. George Washington warned against political parties, anyway. Whatever reason you might see for voting for the other candidates, these two causes are every bit as worthy. Vote for John Jackson, because ending influence from campaign contributions is important enough to elect someone who will not accept them, and because ending partisan politics is worth electing someone not affiliated with either party.
The Midnight Campaign of JOHN JACKSON
   Politicians are always scary, so it's appropriate the Halloween and election seasons coincide. So, I'll give my campaign a Halloween twist, too. Much of my campaigning will be during the night, as I frantically attempt to get out these scraps of paper before the bewitching hour. No lawn signs, no mailers? A candidate who is overlooked because he does not belong to the two major parties? (I got a phone call from a polling place, asking whether I was going to vote for Achziger or Cosgrove and not even mentioning me as a candidate.) In a way, I am the invisible one of the three -- a ghost of candidate. In the spirit of Halloween, vote for the ghost.
Call 1-801-566-4023 or visit the website newsasnewstravelsfast.blogspot.com

Thursday, October 18, 2012

If You Write in Anyone You Want, Your Vote Won't Count

You Cannot Vote for Just Anyone You Want

You cannot vote for just anyone you like in Utah. Nope, can't do it. Your vote won't count.

You can only vote for candidates registered with the state. If you write in someone's name, your vote will be trashed. It won't count unless that person is registered as a write-in candidate.

Are we to be told who we can and cannot vote for? Are we to cast our vote only from a list of candidates approved by the state?

I guess I do think this is wrong. A small thing, in ways, but in principle, it is a big deal. Isn't voting for whomever we choose a basic American right? Somehow, I assumed we've had this right ever since Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and a few others sat down and drafted the documents making this the free-est nation on earth.

I say, change the law. This is America. We deserve not only the right to vote, but the right to vote for anyone we choose.



Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Day 1 Advertisement Still Haunts Me

I expect I'll vote for Mitt, but among the things making me uneasy is that oft-mentioned thought that on the first day, he will issue an order to kill Obamacare.

Not that I don't want Obamacare repealed. I do. But, not by executive order. Would someone, some choice journalist, get Obama to define if that is what he meant. Because if it is, I'm not sure I want to vote for him.

Government by executive order is not the government I signed on with, not the one our nation signed on with back when the Constitution came out.

Let's go back to that advertisement from Romney, back in May.

Video text: "What would a Romney presidency be like?"
Voiceover: "What would a Romney presidency be like?"
Video text: "Day 1"
Voiceover: "Day one, President Romney immediately approves the Keystone pipeline, creating thousands of jobs that Obama blocked."
Voiceover: "President Romney introduces tax cuts and reforms that reward job creators, not punish them."
Voiceover: "President Romney issues order to begin replacing Obamacare with commonsense health care reform."
Voiceover: "That's what a Romney presidency will be like."

Maybe I'm overly fearful, but that does sound like he might be thinking of an executive order to stop Obamacare. Of course, after the ad, the Supreme Court upheld most of the provisions of Obamacare. Responding to that, Romney still said overturning Obamacare would be a day one job, but now he was saying he would "act to repeal" it, which might mean seeking congressional approval of the action. Acting to repeal indicates the setting of a process in motion.

The two quotes I found at from right after the Supreme Court decision were:

"The Supreme Court may have made their decision, but the American people haven't. Day one. Job one. Repeal ObamaCare."


And, “What the Court did not do on its last day in session I will do on my first day if elected President of the United States and that is I will act to repeal Obamacare.”

I'm thinking Romney will go the congressional route, but that ad way back in May still haunts me.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-would-face-tough-road-trying-to-repeal-obamacare-if-elected-president/2012/07/10/gJQAh4nmaW_story_1.html

Jackie Evancho's "To Believe"

Almost unbelievable a little girl could sing with such a practiced, adult-sounding voice, and so beautifully. I thought the song was a cover, and she just imitated someone, but it says the song was written by her uncle. Caught up in the moment of just having heard this, I think to say this is about as notable an achievement as I have ever known, to be able to sing so professionally, and adult-sounding, and gorgeously at such a young age. While it is on YouTube, I doubt this song has been purchased by a record label and released as a single. Who knows, the novelty of a young girl singing this way might give it a chance on the pop charts.
http://www.godvine.com/Jackie-Evancho-s-Unbelievable-Voice-Silences-a-Room-2232.html?fb_action_ids=4344436223329&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Liberty Should Not Remove Punishments

I do not think that liberty should extend so far as to erase punishments for corruption. We came to an earth where we are free to choose, it is true, but we also came to an earth where there are consequences for corruption. Some of the consequences are natural and some are man-made. Either way, consequences are not evil. Corruption is evil, not punishments for corruption. Lest we confuse what libertarianism does, let us realize it removes not one's ability to take drugs, and to spread pornography, and to prostitute, but only does it remove some of the punishments. Are we to prohibit consequences in the name of providing liberty?

Monday, October 15, 2012

A Definite Underdog

Thursday, I take to the doors, hoping to stir up some votes in a run for House District 44. 

Alas, if I intended to win, I should have been knocking the doors all along. I am an independent, and have decided not to accept campaign donations. Not sure independents get too many, anyway, as some donate to Republican candidates, and others to Democratic candidates.

Nor do I want to spend much, period (not that I have much). I guess it just seems like money deciding elections isn't the ideal way. Would we started a revolution and voted for candidates even though they didn't spend much cash.

A word about my opponents, Tim Cosgrove and Christy Alhziger. Tim is about as personable and likable as a politician can be. In the last election, he took on Shawn Bradley, the former BYU great and NBA player. Shawn was the Republican. Tell me, how does Shawn Bradley, running as a Republican, lose in Utah?

Christy is or has been the Republican chair for Legislative District 44. A fine foe she is, and potentially could defeat Tim.

If her campaign pockets are deep enough. 


Sunday, October 14, 2012

This is Prophecy Fulfilled in Our Lifetime

More Jews, by far, are in the United States and Israel than in any other country.

Wikepedia says 5.7 million are in Israel, and 5.3 million in the United States. France is the next highest country, with less than half a million Jewish occupants.

Belonging to a religion that sees America and Israel as gathering points for the house of Israel, I find this significant. Perhaps the day will come when many of them will leave America, for Israel,.I don't know But I do know America is also a gathering place.

I found a website saying 0 percent of the world's Jewish population was in Israel in 1882. By 1900, the percentage was but 1 percent, and by 1939, it was still only 3 percent. In 1948, the year Israel became an official nation, it was still only 6 percent. That more than doubled in the next 7 years, going to 13 percent, and it has climbed in the years since.

Truly, the return of the Jews to the Holy Land is a prophecy being fulfilled in our lifetime.

Polygamists Consider Who to Vote for


      Enjoyable bit of campaigning today, as I received a call and follow-up email from the polygamist community, asking my views concerning them.

      One question they asked was, "Do you believe government should have the right to prohibit consenting adult relationships among those who practice polygamy?

      My answer was: "If no harm is being done to others, then I say it is a matter of religion, even protected as such under the Constitution. I do, however, see it as a protection of youth that they should not be included, especially since there appear to be times when they are assigned to husbands, as opposed to reaching on their own, without direction, a decision as to who they marry. Coercion should also be considered. If the adult women are being coerced to marry, that is wrong. Perhaps we should get rid of the laws against bigamy, but replace them with laws against coerced marriages." 

Saturday, October 13, 2012

If Child Porn Bad, So is Adult Porn

Is anyone opposed to laws against child pornography? Where is the person who says child pornography should be allowed?

Yet, a portion of those who say no to child porn argue adult porn is a right that should not be invaded. The idea of putting someone in jail for looking at a picture is revolting and stupid, they argue.

Me? I do not see the difference. If we would protect children from being victimized by pornography, why would we not also protect adults from being victimized by the same thing?

Women are as important as children. It could be argued that to not protect them is discrimination on the basis of age.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Tax 'Em All

Angry, angry. There are those who are upset with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for weighing in on civic matters while maintaining tax-exempt status.

Yank that tax-free status, they say.

Well, then, maybe we should. Now, churches are not alone in having tax-exempt status and yet weighing in on political issues. Some organizations are set up for that very purpose. They are set with the intent of wielding political influence. There is a movement against corporate personhood, for example, and some of those entities are set up as non-profit. There very purpose is political. The church of Jesus Christ is not. It is a religious organization. That is its purpose. It just happens to get involved in ballot initiates and matters that are legislated because they are not only political, but moral issues.

So, certainly include all other non-profits if we are to change the law.

What can we do? Leave their income tax exempt, except for the income they use to campaign and lobby with. If  they advertise or campaign for or against abortion, corporate personhood, or whatever, tax 'em. Tax 'em all.

This would not keep them from speaking on social matters, or moral concerns. A person can express his or her opinion in public in other ways than advertising. Let them continue to do so, without being taxed. It is only when they expend money on their cause that their income would be taxed.

Well, this solution is not perfect. It does have a flaw. As soon as they are taxed, these organizations are going to suggest their freedom of speech is being taxed, it is being limited. Would the Court hold that the income is being taxed, or would it say it is free speech that is being taxed?

As the law now stands, we cannot contribute to political causes and write our expenses off our taxes. It could be argued, by the same reasoning, our free speech is being taxed.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Planned Parenthood in Same Boat With Churches on Taxes

So, Planned Parenthood and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have the same problem. If they involve themselves in politics in the wrong way, they are going to lose their tax-exempt status.

Our beloved tax code says a tax-exempt organization "may intervene in political campaigns as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare."

I guess arguing for or against abortion, for or against same-sex marriage, and for or against gambling all fit in the "social welfare" category.

But, if the entity endorses or opposes a candidate, they might be in trouble. Says, the same section of the tax code: "The promotion of social welfare does not include participation in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any political candidate."

So, the Church of Jesus Christ cannot endorse Mitt Romney. But, what of an advertisement from the Planned Parenthood Action Committee saying, "Mitt Romney is just wrong for Women." The below link says that ad is okay. I read the link, and am still cannot tell why the ad should be considered okay.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/06/01/planned-parenthood-action-fund-ad-does-not-viol/173178

http://www.doughroller.net/taxes/are-political-contributions-tax-deductable/

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Wondering Whether We Needed Mr. Maughn

I wasn't alive back then, and I admit I've not studied much on what the schools really were like. But, I picture a one-room building with one teacher for all the students in it.

No principle. No janitor. No bus driver. No lunch cook. Just the students and their teacher.

Of course, that would be a school on the frontier. I imagine in 1850, a school in Boston might have offered a few more classes per building. The big cities might have even had school principles. Or, did they call them school masters, or head masters?

The point I would like to make, is that we've added a lot of administration since those days when it was just the school marm and the kids. I believe that now almost half a school's budget goes toward administration.

Should some of that be cut? Should we be laying off administrators? We probably need bus drivers, and school cooks, and janitors, but . . .

How about those guys at the top?

As I write, I search the Internet, and find in an npr.org article by John O'Connor about Florida's education.

"There is no bigger target for school criticism than what disticts spend on administrative staff and other overhead," O'Connor writes. "Joe Taxpayer wants to cry 'waste!' when he sees a bunch of bureaucrats bringing down six figures at his expense."

Well, I confess, I think back to my days in high school, and wonder if the school really would have been reduced to chaos if Mr. Maughn had not been there as principal. What if we just cut him out?

Just wondering. Just wondering.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Fix the Immigration Problem

I hear Doug Wright on KSL say he knows of no one who does not believe our immigration system needs reformed.

Indeed, both sides believe it does. Some say it wrong that it takes years to become a citizen, or years to even come to the U.S. This should surely be fixed. On the other side, some say it is wrong that foreigners are taking jobs from Americans. Why does not Congress do something about this, they ask?

My thought, as I consider that there simply isn't anyone who doesn't think our system is broken, is that this is not an issue Congress should be placing on the back burner, not an issue to wait until after an election, not an issue that we should not be facing up to.

No, my thought was more than that. It was that we elect leaders to answer problems, to come up with solutions, and massive messes deserve massive attention, as in, fix it, now, don't wait.

Well, I know it is because this is such a devisive issue that it is not quickly solved. It is an issue that divides our nation. How do you muster the resolve to go one way or the other when neither side has the public clearly on its side?

I remain of the though, though, that we should not let the issue lie, due to the division. If everyone thinks the system broken, then fix it. If it is clearly a broken system that it takes so long to become a citizen, or to come to the U.S., then fix that. If it is a broken system that allows foreigners to work here (and it might be my bias, but I do not see that as so clear cut), then fix that.

We elect leaders to fix our problems, not sit on them.

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Not the Answer We Would have Given

Perhaps my favorite story from the life of the Christ takes place not during his mortal life, but after His death. Indeed, though it be my favorite story from His life, it has not yet even taken place.

It takes place at the His Second Coming. Turn to Zechariah 12:6.

"And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

One of the reasons I like this scripture is that it shows Christ being kind. We -- humans all -- might have responded, "What do you mean what are these wounds? Your people did this to me. Don't play innocent with me like you don't know what these wounds are all about." Instead, He responds with love, saying, "Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

 

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Let the Immigrant Support His Family

Would seem a good economy would dictate you let people take jobs, if they are willing to work.

The problem we have, though, is that workers are pouring across the border to take jobs at reduced wages, taking the jobs from those already in America.

So, do we chase the Mexican worker back to Mexico? I say, no.

I believe it better to give him the job. We probably could mention economic reasons, such as he will add to the economy by buying goods and services while he is here. In some cases, the job he takes is not one in which the wage has been higher and he is lowering it, but rather it is a job that pays a low wage if it is to exist as a job at all -- at least as a job in the United States, anyway.

If you don't think there are jobs that can only be filled by less expensive labor than what Americans are willing to work for, consider all the products made overseas, where labor is cheaper. There are a number of products made overseas for which there are no American-made products on the market as alternatives.

But the real reason for giving the immigrant the job is not economic, but humanitarian. It just doesn't seem right to see a person who is so desperate for work that he is willing to work for a low wage, and willing to move hundreds of miles to take the job, and to tell him, no.

You don't treat people like that. If they are wanting to do something good, like support their families, I don't care if they are coming from another country, let them work. What is right and wrong is not the same as what makes money. Just as we as individuals do not think how we treat others should depend on whether it makes us richer, so should our nation be a nation of high principles as it deals with immigration.

I say that instead of chasing these people away, we find it in our hearts to make it legal for them to work here.

Friday, October 5, 2012

Would 'Goodness Economics' Work?

You who believe in education, not legislation, tell me if your plan will work.

On the minimum wage.

Our problem is that the minimum wage is a contributing factor to jobs being sent overseas. I say it is healthy to keep these jobs on American soil.

So, what do we do?

What if our concern for the working class rose to the level of buying the more-expensive products over the less-expensive ones? What if we were willing to buy one brand simply because the manufacturer paid its workers well? What if we valued this enough that we set aside our need for low prices, and instead bought the product that paid its employees fair wages?

You say it will never be done. I say, if we decide to do this, it can be done. There are enough good people to make it work. If we educate the public, telling them which products are made by manufacturers offering respectable wages, if we educated the public as to why this is important, enough people will sacrifice -- will pay the higher price -- in order to bring back a portion of these industries to the United States.

Keep the minimum wage or throw it away, but make a spirited public appeal to the goodness of the consumer to support the products made at higher wages. Identify such products, spread the word, and a portion of the populace will support them. Do not denegrade those who continue to buy the lesser-costing items, as they are supporting workers, too. But, if by some long-shot chance we persuade such a large portion of consumers to pay the higher prices, the makers of the lower-priced items will be persuaded to raise their prices to cover paying their own workers better.

This would be a new kind of economy, still a market-driven economy, but one driven by the public's desire to do good, as opposed to just by prices. I'll call it Goodness Economics.

(Post updated Oct. 6)

Does Minimum Wage Chase Jobs Out of America?

Okay, what if there were a minimum wage? (Somewhere, actually, it seems I've heard there is one.)

One must wonder what would happen. I know I look at the economic indicators we hear about all the time and wonder but what they don't reflect the minimum wage.

Things like the trade deficit.

Now, what is this I heard on the Doug Wright Show this morning? Something about how if you threw out all the items in your home, and sought to replace them with made-in-America products, for the large part, it would be a difficult task.

Too many things are made overseas. Too many things don't even have a version of them made in America.

Now, it might be all too simplistic to blame all those jobs going overseas on the minimum wage. Surely, it is. That is, it is too simplistic to blame ALL the problem on the minimum wage. It is too simplistic to say ALL the jobs we are losing to foreign labor would be kept here in America if only we didn't have minimum wage laws.

But, it makes sense they are part of the problem. So, wake up America. You don't have to say, we should drop the minimum wage, but at least recognize the results. If we were to have cheaper labor, more of the labor could be done here in America.

We'd have more jobs to offer our people.

Now, run that up the flag pole, telling people you know how to create more jobs, and how to keep jobs in America. I'm not sure it is going to fly.

Well, anyway, we all know the flip side. We all know why we don't raise the minimum wage. We know more people in America would be roped into low-paying jobs. Instead of people in far away places such as Indonesia performing "slave labor," it would be our own people. Do we really want that?

I bid ye a night, and promise to come back with some more thoughts on this topic.