You can 

never tell the river 

by the waves of the sea.

Homelessness? Part of the Answer is in Reuniting Families

   Step One in working with the homeless should be contacting the homeless person's family, not to overtly pressure them to take the person back into their home, but to make a check to see if the family would allow the person back. I don't know that they should be overly pressured though, as they might have reason for having kicked the individual out.
   This I say in light of a quote from Todd Thatcher I read last week: "It is not insignificant that we refer to people as homeless rather than houseless."
   In some cases, the homeless leave their homes of their own choice. So, you also make a check to see if the person is willing to go back.
   Most everybody has family, even if it is extended family instead of immediate family. There are some who don't, but most everyone does. If someone is homeless then, it is because they have left their family. We speak of the family being the basic unit of society. I is interesting, then, that if we are to solve one of the basic problems in our society, part of the answer lies in reuniting families.
                               

What if Everyone had Rooftop Solar?

   What if everyone had rooftop solar? What if prices dropped enough that most people placed solar panels on their roofs?
   There would still be those times when the sun's rays weren't there, thus requiring the power companies. But, to some extent, the dominance of solar power would bring the power companies to their knees.
   And, one has to wonder if they don't recognize and fear such a day could come.
   And, if the day comes that good batteries are mastered, then homes will become self-sufficient, not needing to rely on the power company for energy when the sun dips behind the clouds. Then, will we need power companies any at all?

Congress Freezes Over too Easily

    Of all the things we should reform, how about the functions of Congress? Too often, our nation's legislative body freezes up when faced with issues needing action. Take health-care reform. Republicans spoke for seven years of the need to overhaul Obamacare. Now, seven months into their having control of both houses of Congress and the president being a Republican, they have knotted up each time they've tried to take action.
   I wonder if part of the reason Congress coughed up to the president some of its authority to declare war, is that it could see it is not well equipped to make a rapid-enough decision when necessary.
   I wonder if part of the reason Congress allows the president to designate national monuments is that it realizes many of the proposals wouldn't get beyond the debate stage if left to them.
   I wonder if we have so many presidential executive orders because Congress is not able to muster action on such things.
   And, I note how Congress each time comes right up to the deadline of defaulting on the national debt.
   Remember, our Constitution called for three governing bodies, with each having its own function. If we fail to correct the unresponsive nature of our law-making body, we will continue to leave decisions in the hands of the president that perhaps they ought to be in the hands of Congress.
   How important is congressional reform? If health-care reform is important, then perhaps congressional reform is just as important, for it is clear health-care reform would go forward faster if Congress did not lock up so easily.
   Some will argue the plodding, deliberative nature of Congress is a wise thing, providing careful, crafted, seasoned legislation. I will grant that thought some credibility. But, this does not downplay the negatives we currently experience.
   I do not know what the answers are. This is a topic I have just begun to consider. But, I am of the tentative feeling that this is a shortcoming we should endeavor to fix.

Kaepernick Tries to do the Right Thing, and We Condemn Him for it

  I am not a Colin Kaepernick hater. He is one of the most unpopular people in all
America, I would guess. But, I am not among those who hold him in disfavor.
  Consider why Kaepernick does not stand and place his hand on his heart. If I am correct, it is because he does not want to salute a country where so much racism remains. He is basically saying, America. you need to get your act together on this issue. You are falling short.
  Do we fall short?
  I read an editorial in the Deseret News, suggesting that while America should unite behind racial equality, not saluting during the Nation Anthem is not the way to go about protesting.
  I'm not so sure Kaepernick is so much trying to protest as he is just trying to be honest in his feelings. He doesn't feel he should salute a nation falling short in treating all people equal, so he doesn't salute. You want him to find another way to protest? That doesn't deal with the fact he doesn't feel right about saluting the flag.
   By telling him to salute the flag, what am I saying? No, Colin, you should feel you can salute a country that doesn't treat all people as equal as you would like? Or, am I saying, No, Colin, racism doesn't reach to the level that you should refuse to salute the flag? Either way, I'm demanding he adopt my opinion, instead of having his own.
  I believe in tolerance, especially for people who are just trying to do the right thing, who are true to their convictions despite facing a national firestorm of hatred, or, at least, a national outcry of outrage. Bravery is standing true to your convictions. I admire him for risking his NFL career in the name of standing up for what he feels he has to stand up for.
   If a man feels he cannot morally salute a flag until it makes a little more progress against racism, who am I to tell him he is wrong to have that opinion? I do not view him as anti-American. I view him as someone who wants to make America better.

  "It is not insignificant that we refer to people as homeless rather than houseless."
                               -- Todd Thatcher Of Valley Behavioral Health

    As I reflect on what Todd says, I realize many of the homeless I have known have been people who burned their bridges with their families. They lost their spots in their homes because the families became frustrated in dealing with them.
   The family is the basic unit of society. It should not surprise us, then, that when the family breaks down, there are consequences. In this case, we end up with homelessness. If people did not burn their bridges with their families, few people would end up on the streets.

Consider these Two Monuments on Their Own Merits

   So, are Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments simply too big? At 1.35 and 1.9 million acres, respectively, they each are roughly as big as the state of Delaware. They are each bigger than the Grand Canyon, and twice as large as all of Utah's national parks (there are five) put together.
   Or, so it is said, and I guess all that is true.
   Doesn't the Antiquities Act say monuments should, "be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management"?
    And, weren't the first monuments all much smaller?
   "(I)t would be hard to argue with a straight face that both these monuments followed the law's dictates to set aside the 'smallest area compatible' with the objects in need of protection," says an editorial in the Deseret News.
   I've got a straight face, and I just might make that argument.
   The Antiquities Act is to protect "historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest." Take the first place designated as a national monument, Devil's Tower in Wyoming, which is the unique remains of a volcanic eruption. The "smallest area compatible" for it would be little more than the tower.
   But, what of Bear's Ears? It is said to contain the largest concentration of archaeological sites in all of North America, and maybe all the world. And, what of Grand Staircase-Escalante? It is known for its geology and fossils, scattered about.
   If you are to follow the Antiquities Act as you set the size and boundaries of the monument, wouldn't you identify each of the prehistoric artifacts and sites, draw a circle around them all, and set that as the size of the monument? There are more than 100,000 archaeological sites in Bears Ears. That's a little different than the single one that is in Devil's Tower National Monument. You can draw a lot smaller circle around one site than you can around 100,000 sites. If you have 100,000 sites to encompass, does it surprise you that they might be scattered across 1.35 million acres.
  Or, do you suggest the space in between the various archaeological sites should not be included? Should we have 100,000 separate monuments?
   So, you want the monument to include all the sites, if possible. And, it should be noted that new discoveries are still coming forth in Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante.
   Each of these two monuments should each be considered on its own merits. It does not matter if each of them is larger than the Grand Canyon or if they are about as large as the state of Delaware. Nor does it matter if the first monuments had much smaller boundaries. The "smallest area compatible" is going to have a complete different meaning when you have 100,000 sites to protect.
   I haven't seen on a map where all the sites are in each of the two monuments. Perhaps, if I did, I would agree that the two monuments are too large. But, I also would not be surprised if trimming needs to be done, it doesn't need to be as much as what the Trump administration is considering.

(Edited and added to 8/27/16

An Assault on the Liberty of One, is an Assault on the Liberty of Us All

I wonder, again, at the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and how they apply to those of us arriving from south of the border.
These rights come from God, not from government, and government cannot (or should not) take them from us. A government might make a law taking away our right to life (on American soil), and that law might suggest we will lose our liberty if we come (be deported), and it might deprive us of the pursuit of happiness (which is what most immigrants come for), but that does not mean the law is right and just.
We should wonder about laws that take away liberties, even if we are not the ones affected. Rather than being satisfied that it is not our freedoms being lost, but those of someone else, we should hold that if freedoms are taken from one, it is an assault on the freedoms of us all.

Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante? Chock Full of Antiquities

   You must grant the opponents of national monuments that they are right, that the Antiquities Act of 1906 specified that the land protected as a national monument shall "in all cases be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected."
   So, what of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which at 1.9 million acres is the largest national monument in the nation, larger than the state of Delaware? What of Bears Ears National Monument, bulging at 1.35 million acres in size?
   Too large?
   Bears Ears is said to contain as many archaeological sites as there are in North America, and maybe the world. Where are they? Do we protect them by separating the land into many islands, each a monument in its own right, or do we connect them all and reduce the monument only to the size that fits them all in?
   Over in Grand Staircase-Escalante, you have dinosaur fossils dating back 75 million years. A good portion of them have been discovered just this century.
   And, there's the rub: How many archaeological sites are yet uncovered? It would seem that while you are to confine protection to the smallest area possible, in both Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, you must protect all the area where archaeological sites might yet be discovered. Does that leave much room for trimming back the size of the monuments?
   Parts of these lands are among the last areas of the U.S. to be mapped and explored. It is said much of the land remains as it was millions of years ago. If we do open these areas to mining, the pristine nature of the land will be forever lost. It would seem if you are to err, you should err on the side of protecting them.
   A treasure destroyed cannot be returned.
 



 in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected

Unalienable Rights are not Terminated by Borders

I tend to wonder if immigrants don't have the right to come. We speak of unalienable rights. If they are truly unalienable, then they cannot be restricted by borders. If a person has certain unalienable rights in Mexico, they cannot taken away from him just because he crosses a border into the U.S. He has the right to life in the U.S., the right to liberty in the U.S., and the right to pursue happiness in the U.S. The U.S. government cannot take these rights away. And, it seems of all nations, the U.S. would be the last to try to take them away.
Unalienable rights are not terminated by crossing a border.

When the Bill is $100 Million, is having Volunteers the Better Option?

   I read how $70 million in federal funds and $30 million in state funds will finance a Medicaid program for Operation Rio Grande, the effort to address homelessness and the crime in the homeless district.
   That's not the whole bill for Operation Rio Grande, but I would guess it is a sizable portion.
   I wonder at such a big bill, Yes, buying beds in drug treatment centers might help. I read a story of a man who was successfully treated. I wonder if Utah's commitment to social treatment might be trendsetting and wonderful.
   Or, are other states already doing this.
   I also wonder if it is too much money. I wonder if it is only a well that will only get deeper, spending increasing year after year. I wonder if we are financing an industry that feeds off the poor. Instead of giving money to the poor, we give it to the providers, those who provide treatment beds for the drug addicts.
   If the treatments work, do we say it is all worthwhile? I don't know. But, I think we should both consider the treatment centers and consider alternatives, such as volunteers. I confess, I do not know how much volunteer work is already involved. We have the Volunteers of America, but how many of their workers are actually unpaid volunteers? How many of their administrators are unpaid volunteers?
   Would we even be able to man an all-volunteer program? Is an all-volunteer program even possible, or are some paid positions necessary?

Thinking Hails us not Only Greater Students, but Greater Politicians

  If one of the greatest ways to educate is to teach to think, even so having a candidate who thinks instead of just giving the book answers is important.
   If our schools produced youth who mastered the art of thinking, those students would go on to accomplish more than the students who memorized everything in the books, but who never learned to think outside the book.
   The same is true of our politicians. If we elect those who memorize and emulate and preach the party line, we will be limited in what we get. But, if we elect leaders who sit back and think through each issue, even occasionally starting all over despite already having thought the matter to its end, we will boast leaders with the wisdom to face the worst of challenges.

2 Nephi 28 and Flying the Confederate Flag

   Should we fly the Confederate flag? Some will tell you there are answers for all right-and-wrong questions in the scriptures, so is there anything in the scriptures that indicates whether we should fly the Confederate battle flag?
    The Latter-day Saints have a scripture. I do not say this is a fulfillment, but I wonder. If it is not a fulfillment, it certainly is a likeness. Just as we should ponder and reflect on all our scriptures, I wonder on what is said in 2 Nephi 28. "(D)ig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this."
   Even so, we "dig a pit" for the black people, in a sense. We throw them down, and harm them. The war was fought, largely, over slavery. Those who see the Confederate battle flag as being an image supporting slavery are not wrong to make that association. Dig a pit for thy neighbor? Yes, flying the flag might qualify as a way of "digging a pit" for them.
  And, as we dig this pit, we say we are doing no harm. We say we have no intention of hurting anyone, and that we are not racists, and that they should not be reading more into it than is there.
   They shouldn't be so sensitive.
   "(D)ig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this"? Even so, we say there is no harm.
   Later in the chapter, it speaks of the devil leading the souls of men carefully down to hell. How careful is the way he leads us on the race issue, how deceptive, as he makes bad things appear good. The scripture speaks of a devil that says he is no devil, for there is none. Even so, we take the message that no harm is being done and say it is not from the devil, for there is no devil whispering in our ear to fly the Confederate flag. Leave the devil out of this, for he has nothing to do with it.
   Oh, if we would just open our eyes, and see that the blacks are taking offense, and are being hurt, and they do see these signs and images as vestiges of the day when slavery was accepted. If we want to harm no one, if we want to be lovers of all men, it would seem we should realize flying and wearing the Confederate flag is harmful.

We Take One Piece of Information and Run with it

   He told me his store was north of where I was at, and across from Walgreen's at about 4700 South. My mind seemed to remember a Walgreen's to the north, so I locked on that location without processing the rest of the information -- that it was about 4700 South.
   As it ended up, the store was not to the north, but the south. There was not a Walgreen's to the north, as I envisioned. Rather, Walgreen's (and thus also the store I was looking for) was on the southeast corner of the very intersection I had turned to the north on.
   I would spend much of the rest of my trip reflecting on the cognitive process, and of how we latch onto one piece of information at the exclusion of all other, sometimes just missing making the right decision for not processing information right in front of us.
   I turned north on the very intersection where my True Value Hardware store was. I was so close.
   So it is with all our decision-making. We are limited by the information we have, and the information we choose to process. Often (perhaps, usually), we lock on the information we first get. It becomes what I shall call our proprietary information, the information we "own" and accept. We have a bias toward it.
   I submit to you that we judge other people with a mindset that runs down this very path I have outlined. We hear bad of another, or get a bad piece of information about another, and we claim the information. It becomes a part of us. Our search for more information stops. That which we have is often information that comes from someone we want to believe.
  Often, gossip is this information that sparks our decision. We don't usually back down from it. That which is passed to us through gossip is often all we think we need to know.

Wounds do not Heal When Images of Injustice Remain

   Along with many in our nation, I consider anew whether we should have all these statues, flags, and symbols from the Civil War. Do we tear them all down? Will it reach a point where having the Confederate battle flag on your T-shirt is considered a hate crime?
   Is the Confederate flag nothing more than a symbol of regional pride? Is it simply a nice-looking symbol that people display because it is nice looking?
   I also consider this: Are some who fly the flag secretly racist? (Some, I say, not all.)
   The nation is embroiled in controversy over this (and other racial topics). Sometimes, the best answers are those that unite, not divide, and, I see a nation divided by this debate. Would we be better to let these images, flags and statues remain as acceptable, in the name of not further dividing our nation, for surely our nation is being divided by the debate? Do we put the debate down and unite under the belief that no harm is intended?
   But, even as this thought sweeps through my head, another thought comes. Perhaps ridding ourselves of these symbols is a step we must take if we are ever to end racism, something we must go through to get to a point we need to be at. I can see how, if we continue to see the Confederate battle flag as an acceptable image, it will always be a burr to some black people, always be viewed as an image that puts them down and justifies the day when they were slaves. The flags and the images and the statues will always be there to stir up feelings on both sides, if we let them remain as acceptable.
  Wounds do not heal when images of injustice remain. Not if they remain acceptable, anyway. We are more than 150 years beyond the Civil War and yet racism remain. We have not fully healed from the scars. Allowing these flags, and statues to remain around is is not alone the cause of our lingering racism, but it contributes to it.
   I do not say we should make wearing a T-shirt with the Confederate flag on it a crime. Not at all. But, I do say we should teach each other that it is not acceptable to wear that T-shirt. We can never fully unite as a nation if these images are forever splashed in front of the eyes of the blacks, making them wonder if the display of them is a way of putting them down. These images will forever be as a burr. Further, while the images are, truly, no more than displays of regional pride or beautiful symbols to some, to others they are a way of honoring racism while not confessing to it. There are those who will not admit to racism, but who wear the Confederate flag at least in part because they do have some feelings of ill will toward blacks. If we ever want to be fully united -- blacks and whites together -- we need to reach the point where it is no longer acceptable to express inner feelings of discrimination while masking them as nothing more than regional pride. I repeat, the good portion of Confederate flag wavers might be completely pure in their intentions, not being racists, at all.
   But, some are.
   Further, if you have even only a small amount of racist feelings in you and you allow yourself to practice it, you feed those feelings. You are fooling yourself, if you say there is no harm in this, if you say what you do is innocuous. If you say you mean no harm, so no harm is done, you are not facing the reality that your action does, indeed, harm another person. Allowing inner feelings of racism in yourself to fester and to be fed is a mistake. We are what we practice. If you leave just a little hedge for ill feelings toward others -- in this case, the blacks -- that hedge becomes a part of you. Those feelings will not go away as long as you allow the hedge. You have fed them and they remain. You cannot just justify what you do by saying they should get over it and not be so sensitive.
   If we are ever to get over racism -- ever to cure ourselves of it -- we must reach a point where we do not want to hurt each other. In this case, that means we must realize the Confederate flag is not appropriate. It is not that we should outlaw it. But, we should make it unacceptable.
   Just as the N-word is wrong, so is the Confederate flag. I should qualify that: Yes, flying the Confederate flag is not yet considered so offensive, so wrong. But, both acts hurt the blacks. Both are viewed by them as a way of putting them down. In that sense, I repeat, even as the N-word is wrong, so is the Confederate flag.
   There was a day when uttering the the N-word was more acceptable. That day has passed. Even so, the day may come when when we realize waving the Confederate flag is wrong.

(Blog last edited 8/20/17)

Voicing Opposition to Racism helps People Understand it is Wrong

   Nothing taught is nothing learned, it is said (by me). So, it is a good thing for voices throughout the nation to be condemning racism. Those who practice it need to know it is wrong. Those in the white nationalist organizations need to know what they are doing is wrong. Those marching shoulder-to-shoulder with them need to know what they are doing is wrong.
   Those who might be in danger of answering a call to join such protesting might think twice as they hear the nation calling out those who practice such things.

I Wonder if Operation Rio Grande could be More Open

   I wonder if Operation Rio Grande could be more open. Why be so secretive? Coming up on the initiative, officials said little of what they were planning to do. I believe I heard it said that they did not want to tip their hands, and did not want to endanger officers or the homeless.
   Now that the arrests are underway, I still am not hearing how they are going about arresting people. Are they largely just arresting people who have outstanding warrants? How many people are being caught red-handed dealing drugs? Maybe those things are not being hidden. Rather, maybe there simply isn't a reporter thinking to go read the booking sheets and file a news story.
   Off top, I wonder why officials cannot just spell out exactly how they are going about doing things. If they are protecting people's lives or health, good, but I wonder if people's lives and health are not being endangered.
   So, why the secrecy?

Barricades between Streets and Sidewalks Might Stop This

   Sometimes, when a vehicle strikes off onto a sidewalk in an act of terrorism, I repeat my plea that we build cement barricades along some of our busy streets, protecting those on the sidewalks.
   So, I repeat the plea today, after what happened in Barcelona.

Were those Who didn't Vote More Responsible than I?

 I voted yesterday. Those who didn't vote, however, can perhaps pride themselves for being more responsible citizens than I, in a way.
  I didn't study before I voted. One vote went to someone I know just a little bit. Another went to someone who I overheard saying he is running. And, went to someone I voted for at random, not knowing a thing about any of the candidates.
   Such voting can be said to be counter productive. While other voters entered the voting booth educated and prepared to make a meaningful vote, I entered with nothing (or slight little) to offer. If most voters were such as I -- selecting candidates at random -- it would reduce the election to a toss of a coin, so to speak. We would be electing by virtue of chance, not reason.
 

Choice is Increased When a Matter is Outlawed

   Outlawing marijuana, or pornography, or prostitution, or gambling, or even Diet Coke . . . can add to the choice you have. You list all the reasons for doing or not doing something, and if its being illegal is on one side of the leger, that adds to the factors on whether to do the matter.
   The sharper the pros and cons, the greater the choice. Agency is increased when reasons for and against a matter are heightened.
   Choice does not exist in a vacuum where there are not reasons either for or against a matter. Conversely, the more reasons you add, the greater the choice. And, the greater the choice, the greater the agency.

Give Criminals no Elbow Room and Crimes will go Away

   Operation Rio Grande: They are arresting people right and left, tossing many of them in jail. The effort to bring law to the lawless in the homeless district of Salt Lake City is off to a fast start.
   I have wondered why solving the crime situation in the homeless district is such a problem. You simply out man the criminals. You station so many officers there, the criminals have no elbow room to commit their crimes.
   This approach is similar to Operation Rio Grande, but might be a little different. It seems if you had stationed enough officers -- and not undercover -- there would not be many arrests. It seems the criminals wouldn't be committing their crimes if they knew officers were within sight, watching their every move.
   Whatever Operation Rio Grande is, as far as how they are going about arresting people, it might be worthwhile. Arresting the criminals gets them off the street and away from the rest of the homeless. I don't know enough about Operation Rio Grande to fully have a feel for whether I altogether like it. I understand 160 officers were involved. With that many, it seems you would have saturated the area so completely that there would be no wiggling room for criminals to commit their crimes, but they made 87 arrests that first day.
 

Choice Comes from Hearing Both Sides of the Story

   Choice comes not from having just the pleasant facts about a matter, but the unpleasant ones, as well. If you are to choose between smoking marijuana and not smoking it, but you only know what is alluring about the drug, and know none of the negatives, you will choose to smoke it.
   Which brings us to an interesting question. Why is it that so many don't know both sides of the equation? It would make an interesting survey: Ask people to list the good things about marijuana and the bad things. Bet the survey would show the average person knows more of the good than of the bad.
   One of the reasons for people knowing more of the good, is that partakers of marijuana are vocal. Another is that some don't want to listen to the negatives. They block them out. Bottom line is, backers of marijuana have been more successful at getting their message out than those who oppose the drug.

Your Choice is Limited by what You Know

  If you were deciding to visit Southern California, and the only thing you knew about the area was that it had beaches, your decision might seem easy.
   And, if you found out Hollywood was there, and they make movies there, your decision might be even easier.
   But, what if someone told you there are ghettos, and crime, and pollution and that you'd get skin cancer from all the sun? What if someone told you about all the traffic jams?
   Now, you've got a choice. When it was just the beaches and Hollywood, it really wasn't a choice.
   Well, I wonder if this same principle might apply to our discussion of whether we should outlaw drugs. When the only thing you know is that they make you feel good, the choice is easy. If someone tells you they are the most beneficial plant in the world, you are thinking even more about taking the drug. And, if they start listing all the musicians who have taken marijuana and they tell you how it enhanced their creativity, you become even more inclined to smoke a little pot.
   If the other side of the story doesn't get told, you will likely end up on weed. But, if someone informs you marijuana clouds your ability to think, and retards brain development when you are young, you might have second thoughts. If they point out that there is a greater propensity to commit crime when you are on drugs, and if they suggests the decision-making patterns are pre-empted to a degree that you are more inclined to do things harmful to others, you hopefully will reconsider smoking weed.

Consequence adds to Agency

   They would tell you if we outlaw drugs, we take away their agency.
   I will wonder if much the opposite is true: If we outlaw drugs, we add to their agency. We are not forced to keep laws. We may be subject to punishments if we do not keep them, but we are not forced to keep them.
   And, I think of a place where it is reasoned that if we do not have laws, we do not have sin. It is a scripture from my religion (2 Nephi 2:13 in the Book of Mormon).
   "And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment or misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all thing must have vanished away."
   True choice comes when consequences are attached. If there are no consequences, there is nothing wrong with whatever a person decides to do. And if there is nothing wrong with whatever he decides to do, then there is no happiness from choosing the right. And, if there is no righteousness nor happiness, there is no punishment for doing wrong and no misery for regretting that you did do wrong. And, if these things are not -- if there is no good and evil -- then there is no God, for God is the source of good. When we think of  good, we think of it coming from God. And if there is no God, there is no earth, for God created earth, which is the place we were sent to to make our choices. And, if there is no life on earth, all things must have vanished away.
  It would seem to me, then, that earth is the place we came to to make choices, and we can make those choices because punishments were affixed.

(Indexes: agency, libertarian)
 

  The Mannheimer Daily Double was an unusual newspaper, carrying not just one story on breaking events, but two -- and occasionally more.
  As the paper's executives saw it, different news outlets give different spins on the same events. So, the Daily Double printed the second stories whenever it spotted those different spins. Not the whole story, but just the portion that offered different information, or a different take or tone. If the Daily Double had printed the whole article, it would have been forcing the reader to wade through the story twice just to pick out the differences. Better to do that for the reader.
  So unusual was this service -- such an innovation in newspapering -- that the Mannheimer Daily Double was read not just in Mannheimer, Minnesota, alone, but throughout all the country. By filling a niche in the market that was not being previously met -- and one that there was a big need for -- the paper's out-of-state subscriptions came to rival those of any paper, be it USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, or whomever.
   Note: While I place the newspaper in a fictional city in Minnesota, I do wish Salt Lake City were the city to host such a newspaper.

True Republicanism Requires Men and Women of Thought

   If we were to practice the republican form of government to its fullest, we would do things a little differently than what we do now. The wisdom in the republican concept, is that those you elect should be wise, should endeavor to think things out, and should weigh issues even-handedly.
   They should be seekers of truth, as much as people who think they have already arrived at truth.
   We lack that. Our politicians each think they already have the truth. Rather than looking at issues as through a microscope, examining and studying them, they view things through either the prism of conservatism or the prism of liberalism.
   Rather than thinking anew, they apply only the thinking fed to them through the prism they ascribe to. They don't consider ideas new to them. Rather, they myopically hold to ideas they are pledged to.
   If we would practice the republican form of government to its fullest, we would elect people not only for where they already stand on the issues, but because we recognized in them the ability to think things through. Do we do that now? Do we elect people to think out the issues? No, we do not. We elect them for their agendas, and we send them forth to fulfill those agendas, be they agendas that are conservative or liberal.
   We don't elect them to think, we elect them to follow prevailing thoughts.
   Does the system we practice encourage open minds? No, it does not. In fact, if our politicians have open minds -- if they could change their minds on climate change or whatever -- we don't want them. Such open-mindedness is not considered a positive, but a negative.
   You reap what you sow, it is said. And, if we value closed-minded thinking, we will reap being a nation of division, a nation that divides into two sides, neither willing to budge. We will reap being a nation of incivility, a nation in which neither side will even listen to each other.
   And, we have done much of our reaping already.
   If we do not value open-mindedness, we will reap being a nation that does not practice republicanism to its fullest, for -- at least to me -- a true system calls for those we elect to think things through, rather arriving with ideologies fed to them, rather than coming in with marching orders from their party.
   I think of the Electoral College, and how it was set up that we would elect those who would, in turn, elect a president. My thought is that the intent was that those who were the Electoral College members were to be thinkers, elected to think, weigh, and consider. My thoughts on republicanism not being practiced to its fullest are prompted by my belief of how the Electoral College should be operating.

(Note: Blog edited and added to after midnight going into 8/13/17)

Who is this "@_americafirst_" behind this Meme?

   Now would be a wonderful time to be able to trace the sources of disinformation, propaganda and misleading memes.
   Take one of the big ones now making the rounds. "BILL CLINTON GAVE NORTH KOREA $5 BILLION AND TWO NUCLEAR REACTORS IN 1994, ESSENTIALLY GIVING THEM NUKES"
  It turns out, Clinton did negotiate an agreement in which North Korea would take a current reactor off line and stop development of two other nuclear reactors in exchange for the United States helping it construct two light-water reactors. The $5 billion might be a reference to the cost projected for those two reactors.
   But, the deal fell through. The two light-water nuclear reactors were never completed, so how much of the $5 billion was actually expended is hard to say. Was there anything, at all, then, to the claim that Clinton essentially gave North Korea nukes? Well, North Korea did steal the construction equipment used for building the nuclear reactors and did learn a little bit about making light-water reactors.
   However much the Koreans benefited is hard to say, but the meme appears to be an overstatement.
   I wonder at such memes, and such disinformation. (President Trump coined or popularized a name for them: fake news.) I wonder at them. What if we could trace down where they came from, who started these rumors.
   This one comes with a tag line, @_americafirst_. I word search, and find that that is an Instagram account. Who are the actual people behind it, however, is another matter.
   Two reasons for wanting to know where all these fake memes and such come from: (1) They are damaging and misleading, and we should want to know all those who seek to lead us astray. We should maybe even be compiling a list of those who commonly spread such disinformation. (2) When the investigation into Russian influence in our election was younger, the Intel Community said much of what was done was but disinformation and propaganda. We have no reason to believe the Russians have ceased such efforts. So, doesn't it follow that a share of the false memes might be coming from the Russians? I think we should at least be wary of that, at least open to the idea and looking to see if it is true.
(Edited Aug. 11, 2017)

From this Vantage Point, I do not Favor Limited Government

  Big government is not necessarily bad government. It is what a government does that determines whether that government is good. If there are a lot of things the government is doing, but they are all wise actions that benefit the public, however big those actions have made the government, it is still good government.
   I am not advocating deficit spending, mind you, for spending too much money is not wise and therefore that is not good government.
   But, I am a believer that governments were instituted for the benefit of man. I do believe they were instituted because there is good that they can do. And, if governments are there to do good, I don't think we should limit how much good they can do.
   There might be different ways of looking at what "limited government" is and what it means. But, if we are suggesting government is inherently evil, and therefore we should limit it, I take a different view. I do not favor limiting government if it is but doing good things for its people, and, I suggest, there are probably a million good things it can do.

Ainges Should Make Sure the Money is being Used Correctly

  A quarter of a million dollars. That's how much Michelle Ainge, wife of Danny Ainge and mother of Third District congressional candidate Tanner Ainge, contributed to a super PAC supporting Tanner.
   A quarter of a million. 
   Danny says the Ainges have zero control over the PAC. So, it would follow that if the ads ran by Conservative Utah PAC are inaccurate or false, the Ainges can do nothing about it.
   That's if they do have zero control
    I guess I think otherwise, though. If the Ainges contributed that much money, they certainly have some leverage in how it will be used. The PAC is surely going to listen to them. The Ainges have an obligation to speak up if they feel the PAC isn't playing fair. 
   A quarter of a million is a lot of money. The Ainges should want to make sure it is being used correctly.

Just Solar Users? If there is to be a Usage Fee, Everyone should Pay it

I read a story of how the Public Service Commission in Utah is considering rate changes adverse to the solar industry. Some solar advocates say the rate changes would be among the most regressive in the nation, and could stop the solar industry in Utah.
With the solar industry just becoming viable the last few years, and with it being a key component in countering green house emissions, according to some, this is not a small issue. If you kill the industry just as it is getting on its feet, that should be a concern.
  The rate hike thing is a complicated issue and it is nice of the Deseret News to wade in offering us news coverage. Joel Eves, director of Lehi City Power, suggests his 19,800 regular customers should not have to pay costs that the 200 solar users should be paying. What costs? When the solar user buys a rooftop system, there is nothing the 19,800 regular customers pay for him.
    I think what the Lehi power director is referring to is the infrastructure -- the cost it took to build the lines to transport the power. The idea is, the other power providers paid for that, so if the solar customers are to get paid for the power they feed back into the system, then they should pay a share for what it has cost to build the grid. I wonder at this. It seems that by this line of thinking, all customers use the grid. It doesn't matter if the power is being put into the grid or taken out, either way, all customers use the grid. So, if there is to be a usage fee, it should be charged equally to everyone, not just to the solar users.

The United Utah Party Practices Americanism

   I enjoyed the experience of manning booths at Draper Days and the Salt Lake County Fair. It was opportunity to discuss what I like about the United Utah Party with people. I do not know what it will become, but early indications are it values civility and allowing people to think for themselves. It does have some political stands, but does not dictate its positions heavy-handedly. 
   There are times, when to run as a candidate, you have to sign a statement saying your political positions will fall in line with what the party believes. I cannot understand that. To me, the model for having an opinion in America is not one in which the party dictates the beliefs, and you are forced to sign on. Rather than having a party subscribe to me what I should believe, I like a party that will let me come to my own conclusions. I also like it that the United Utah Party will be less inclined to nominate just one candidate in conventions. You only need to win 20 percent of the delegates in convention to be placed on the primary ballot. Thus, we are passing along the decision to the people, who are the ones who should be making the decision. The idea that we would encourage a system where only one person's name appears on the ballot has always bothered me. That isn't democracy, to me.

   To sum it up, When it becomes that the party is selecting the candidate, and forcing its choice on the people, that is not democracy. And, when the party is dictating what the people should believe, and what their positions should be, that, too, is not democracy.

   I'm grateful that there might now be a party that is more in line with what I think America is all about. 

There are Natural Consequences and Government Consequences

   There are consequences in most any choice. If a person chooses to smoke, there will be consequences. Often, the threat of those consequences -- the threat of what might happen -- influences us to do good. If we are reminded (in a kind and caring way) that drugs might ruin our lives, we will be more likely to steer clear of taking them.
   Does the threat of what might happen -- the threat of consequence -- ruin our agency? Does it reduce our agency? I don't think too many people would say it does.
   Now, I would draw a parallel: Even as natural laws that bring consequences do not take away agency, neither do many of the laws of government erase our agency. If I smoke, I might get lung cancer. If I smoke pot, I might go to jail. In each case, there is the threat of a consequence. But, in each case, my ability to choose remains. I can smoke cigarettes and get cancer. And, I can smoke pot and go to jail. 

I Wonder on our Children's Influences, and Whether to Ban Some

  (Note: I repost this. I originally posted it Aug. 22, 2013.)

 We live in the day of the libertarian. Tonight, I hear his voice on Facebook. "Alcohol prohibition was a disaster," he says. "Drug prohibition is even worse."
   Is it spin, or is it fact? For they suggest that if I oppose them, I am opposing freedom.
   Tonight, I also think again of the three teenagers in Oklahoma, who gunned down the Australian student for the just thrill of it, just to see someone die. And, I think of the Australian's right to life, and of how good government has a responsibility to protect.
   As much as any other measurement, the measurement of government is in how well it protects its citizens.
   I think of a social media site belonging to one of the three teenagers, filled with music and rhetoric on violence, and sex and drugs. I think how even libertarians should understand these influences did play a role in the teenagers doing what they did.
   Do I wonder whether we should outlaw some music? Surely, I do. I wonder if in another day we would have been quick to outlaw it. Back in the day when we outlawed selling cigarettes to teenagers, would we not have been as quick to outlaw selling to children music that calls for the death of others, and violent video games that roll out death as a game?
   I do not know. I stop and wonder if by outlawing cigarettes to children, the children only turn to them more. But, I do not know. Perhaps, it is that they take them less than they would if they were legal.
   At any rate, I'm tending towards thinking throwing so much violence before our children's eyes is unwise, including the violence found in the theaters. Why would we subject our children to these things, in their formative years?
   We do not leave the child free to run out and get pornography, or to smoke cigarettes, or to drink. Why is it now that violence has become such a commodity, that we spin the argument that we cannot deprive them of it, for to do so would take away freedom?

George Washington Suggested Licentiousness is Different than Liberty

 What would George Washington think of today's libertarianism, which holds that government should not restrict prostitution, pornography or drug usage? I do not know, but I found three quotes that make me wonder:
   "Discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness."
   "Licentiousness may not be substituted for liberty."
   "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."
   Licentiousness is unrestrained immorality and the ignoring of legal restraints. Washington often wrote about the need to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, which was an uprising against an alcohol tax. When he used the word "licentiousness," did he view the uprising, itself and alone, as licentiousness? Or do the above quotes refer to unrestrained immorality as we think of it today, applying to such things as prostitution, etc.?
(Blog originally post Nov. 14, 2012)

Should Makers of Election Machinery be Allowed to Contribute?

   I read an old story, from way back in 2004, that tells how Diebold Election Systems officials contributed to Republican candidates. Somehow, a bond between a maker of election machinery and just one of the parties seems wrong.
   And, that is what the Mother Jones article was driving at.
   There are surely other industries in which company officials shouldn't be donating to politicians. What makes this case so unpalatable is that the contributions were directed pretty much just to Republicans. That the makers of election machines should develop a bias for one of the parties doesn't, to me, sound like a good thing.

Maple Faucet Showed the Nation how to have a Good Time

   The America I envision? Let me tell you the people in Maple Faucet. They were amazing. They took your traditional county fair, and turned it into something political. I remember when they first did it in 2019, it set the whole nation on its ear.
   You walked in thinking it was just another fair, what with the Ferris wheel,  the helicopter rides, and all. Lot's of bands, and there were a couple magicians, and a two or three comedians.
    But, that isn't what this fair was about, and that wasn't what most people came to see. No, they came for the politics. You've never seen such a gathering, such a production, such a discussion of all things political. If you wanted to discuss and learn about climate change, that was in the main auditorium. For abortion, you'd go to a tent set up on the west side. The Trump discussion? That was also in a tent -- a large tent -- over by the east fence.
   Now, you'd have to know these people in Maple Faucet. Decent folk. Not many cities would pull off an event like this without a lot of rancor and bickering. After all, in most places, that's what politics are all about: fighting and feuding and demeaning each other. Not so, in Maple Faucet. Most every one of the issue discussions began with an informative video. Then, when they did open the floor to discussion, it was even-handed.
   "Max, what do you think about this?" one person would ask. And, Max would offer his thoughts and no one would jump all over him. They weren't there to fight with each other, but to learn from one another.
    Only in Maple Faucet, I guess. Or, as Maple Faucet represents an imaginary America in my story, only in America -- the America I would like to see.

The Harm from Alcohol and Drugs Goes beyond Drunken Driving

   Most can see how alcohol and drugs should be outlawed when a person is driving a car. With the increased risk of accident, our drunken-driving laws are seen as wise and necessary.
   But, does it go unnoticed that those who are drunken and drug-impaired are also more likely to make decisions that harm others, period? All kinds of decisions. It is not just when they are behind the steering wheel of a vehicle. Do we acknowledge they are more likely to kill, for example?
   Or, am I wrong?
   There are, what, 10,000 alcohol-impaired traffic fatalities in a year? Aren't roughly a third of all  traffic fatalities the result of alcohol-impaired driving? We can see it would be foolish to not outlaw drunken driving, so we outlaw it.
   But what of the other harms brought on by those who are substance impaired? Do we ignore them? Do we somehow say that is different? Do we even keep track of how many murders are committed by the alcohol impaired? (Don't know that I've even ever hear the term, "alcohol-impaired murder.") Do we track the share of murders committed by those who are marijuana-impaired?
  Perhaps we do keep some of these statistics. I read of how 37 percent of sexual assaults are committed by those under the influence of alcohol.
  It doesn't escape me that 37 percent for sexual assaults is about the same as one-third for traffic fatalities. We have similar results, but we don't have similar standards. Why the double standard? Should there be a double standard? We justify one, but we don't justify the other. Why?

Should all Land the Federal Government Owns be given it by States?

   I change my mind on the federal government's right to own and direct our wilderness and such lands.
   Then, I change it back. Then, I go into a mode of not being sure what opinion to hold.
   I'm reading along in the Constitution, when I come to the part where it says the federal government has authority to run places it has purchased from the states to use as military installations.
   It says those places purchased by the federal government shall be sold with the consent of the state legislatures.
  Well -- just as it has occurred to millions before me -- it occurs to me that if the federal government can only have land for military sites if the states grants over those properties, by extension, if it owns other federal lands, it should only do so if the states grant those lands over.
   And, many take what the Constitution says a step further. They say it means that other than such properties outlined in the Constitution, the federal government is to own no property at all.
   I consider on it. At the time the Constitution was written, there was no federal government. It follows, then, that the federal government owned not a single piece of property. If it were to obtain land, it would have to obtain it from the states.
   So, what the Constitution says is but an acknowledgment that the federal government would have to acquire land if it were to have land. It did not prohibit the federal government from obtaining open land as the nation grew westward.
   Or is that what the Constitution is saying? Should all land the federal government owns be granted it only if state legislatures appropriate such properties to the federal government?
   I will think on it some more.

Evidence in Dallas: A Little Pot Might Make a Person Less Rational

    Among the news items of the day: A man was beaten badly on a rapid transit train in the Dallas area -- for asking a group to quit smoking marijuana.
    I wonder on marijuana. I wonder if it leads you to do things you wouldn't do if you were not under its influence. I wonder if those in the group were influenced by their marijuana. Are marijuana users more likely to be irrational, and perhaps turn violent at times?
   Most proponents of marijuana would perhaps concede the point, noting it is no revelation that marijuana is an influence. The question is rather, they would say, whether people should be free to choose to take marijuana.
   My point is, though, that perhaps they lose the very freedom they seek when they take marijuana. Their decisions are affected, altered by the drug. Sometimes, they mourn and lament the decisions they made while under the influence.

To Support Sunday Closures, I Consider Eating at Chick-fil-A

   After being closed Sundays for 70 years, Macey's is swinging its doors open on the Sabbath Day.
   It seems a little amazing that in the Salt Lake Valley, with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints headquartered here, we will now be left without a grocery store closed on Sundays.
   I once shopped exclusively at Macey's and bought my gas at Cardwell, but find I have pretty much drifted away from that. I wonder if I should recommit to finding whatever few places remain closed on Sundays, and make a point to shop there. I don't know that I've even once been in a Chick-fil-A, but maybe I should go there weekly.

It Seems Pressing that We should Consider New Voting Machines

  Utah invited some of its voters to try out various election machines on the market, with an eye toward buying new equipment. Security, the state suggested, is a priority.
  I think it wonderful the state is considering security. With the threat our election machinery could be compromised unveiled by the 2016 election, it is probably wise to consider whether new equipment would help.
   Why not call up the experts and ask them which company offers the safest machine? I'd call up J. Alex Halderman, the computer scientist who called for the recounts and who was an expert witness before a senate select committee. He has suggested avoiding machines with paperless ballots. He has also suggested having optical scanners. And, he has also suggested that cybersecurity best practices be applied in the design of voting equipment. Why not ask him which, if any, makers are doing this, and which one is doing the best? And, if there are best practices still to be implemented, tell the voting machine makers you are going to wait and buy from a company that will add these best practices.
   In light of the 2016 election, it seems rather pressing that the most secure voting machines be used. Every county in the nation should be considering if the equipment currently in use is the best, or whether they should go with different machines.

Article 1, Section 8 Might not Leave us Far from Where We're at

  I wonder tonight if the general welfare clause of the Constitution should be subordinate to the enumeration of powers given the federal government in Article 1, Section 8.
   Reading comments from the Founding Fathers, it seems they did intend for it to be this way, did intend the things enumerated to have precedence over the general welfare clause.
   And, it causes me to wonder at what type of a government would be left, if powers were kept within what the listing. I read through each item, anticipating that our government would be limited much more than it is. As I progressed through my reading, however, I wondered if most everything the federal government is doing might fit under this umbrella. Maybe, maybe not, depending on how you interpret those things in the listing.
   The government should be allowed to only do these things:
   1. It should be able to tax in various forms.
   2. It should have power to pay its bills.
   3. It should be able to provide for the common defense.
   4. It should be able to provide for the general welfare.
   5. It should keep taxes uniform throughout the United States, which probably means one state or section of the country shall not be imposed greater taxes than another. Or, does it mean graduated income taxes are not allowed? I don't think so, but maybe.
   6.It should be allowed to borrow money and run up a debt.
   7. It should regulate trade and commerce with other nations and between states.
   8. It should establish the rules of naturalizing people as citizens when they came from other countries.
   9. It should govern bankruptcies and make the rules on bankruptcies.
   10. It should coin money.
   11. It should establish which weights and measurements are used.
   12. It should set laws and punishments for counterfeiting.
   13. It could have a postal service. Does this granting of authority imply that other national utilities and services are appropriate?  Does a national health system fit under this?
   14. It should provide highways, if that is what is meant by saying it could "post roads."
   15. It should promote the progress of science and the arts. Does this extend authority over schools and learning?
   16. It should extend patents and copyrights.
   17. It should have a court system beneath the Supreme Court.
   18. It should define and punish crimes committed internationally. It refers to "Offences against the Law of Nations," which makes me wonder if the Constitution blindly made room for NATO, the United Nations and other such international laws and organizations.
   19. It should have power to declare war.
   20. It should have officers armed to fight contraband and piracy, and authority to make rules regarding international captures and arrests.
   21. It should raise and support armed forces, although there would be no standing armed forces. The duration of any armed force would be limited to two years.
   22. It should be allowed to have military posts and sites, and allowed to govern them.
   23. It should be allowed to draft and use other measures to raise an armed force.
   24. It should be allowed to suppress both insurrections and invasions.
   25. It should provide the training, and arming for the military forces.
   26. It should not set the rank for officers in command positions, as that should be left to the states.
   27. It should be allowed a system of disciplining those in the military, thus our military courts.
   28. It should be allowed a district where the federal government is headquartered, thus the District of Columbia. And, it should be the legislative arm for that district.
   29. It should have authority to govern all places and sites purchased or transferred from the states for federal use as military sites.
   30. It should not have any sites used for the armed forces except those granted to it by the state legislatures. In other words, there shouldn't be a Ft. Douglas unless the Utah Legislature authorizes it.
This is one of the provisions that makes me reflect the most. It doesn't say anything about this applying to all federal lands, but I wonder that if military places need to be acquired from the states, then if we are to have any other federal properties -- national parks and BLM lands and such -- should they not come under the same rule? This might flip me on my head in my opinion on federal lands.

(Last updated and corrected 8/4/17)