The night Ben Shapiro was here, I thought how it would have been a good idea to have had a place for public debate -- of the issues. Let the two sides come in and discuss each issue, from LGBT rights to free speech rights to whether Antifa is a violent group.
  Maybe put it on TV, so they know that by being part of the debate, their voices are being heard.
  The NFL Flag Flap was also under discussion this same day, and somewhere during it, I noticed how the NFL players often reached a point of unity and of tolerance for both sides. A wonderful thing. I wonder how you could get that into the debates.
   And, I'm not seeing how. The NFL players are all on the same team. They sought for common ground, and to understand each other because they are teammates, and if you are a teammate, you love your teammate and support him.
   So, you try to understand and empathize with him.
   Not so when you have two sides such as there were at the Ben Shapiro appearance. They (at least a good share of them), come with hatred for each other, and no desire to get along.
   So, however would you get them to pursue common ground? However would you get them to say, "Hey, while we disagree on this, is there anything we can do to get along, anything we can do so both of us are satisfied?"
    I am not coming up with anything, tonight, on how to instill that into a debate setting.

If We can, Let's Provide Relief to all the Islands

   What if we walked down the street where people were face-down dying? What if some of them were Americans and some of them weren't? Would we pick up their heads and look at their faces one by one, only to drop the faces of the non-Americans right back into the ground? "That's not one of ours," we would say as we let their faces drop heavily back into the street.
  While we hear calls reminding us that Puerto Ricans are Americans, and we should be giving every effort to reach them with relief supplies that were provided when Texas and Florida were hit by hurricanes, I wonder about Dominica, and the other islands in the Caribbean.
   While I might agree that we should limit our government response to just the American territories (due to the debt of our government and it being true we financially can only do so much), I like the idea of our charities and relief organizations joining in the efforts to help all the islands. And, I imagine that might be what is happening. Hope so. I don't like seeing a face dropped back into the ground.
 

Why Could not Helicopters have been Used More?

   I, too, wonder on why we could not be more responsive in our relief efforts in Puerto Rico. Fly over and drop parachutes with the goods. How long could that take? You get some of the goods, the first of the goods, together and fly them in, if necessary within 24 hours.
   Or, you bring the relief supplies in by transport helicopter. A helicopter could reach any spot in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. If, by chance, the helicopter doesn't have fuel tanks large enough to make it all the way to Puerto Rico, you bring the helicopters in on a transport ship.
   Problems with the port? Bring in the helicopters. Let the ships get the supplies close to the port, then let the helicopters take over for the last few hundred yards.
   The same goes for all the relief supplies sitting in the dock. Get the helicopters in there and transport the goods to the remote areas inside Puerto Rico and to the surrounding islands.

Congress Should have taken Action on the Jones Act

  I wondered, when President Trump placed the Jones Act on hold to allow ships not from America to help relief efforts to Puerto Rico, why it wasn't Congress that was acting.
  The Jones Act is an act saying only American ships can be used when transporting goods from one American port to another American Port.
  Why could Congress not have met in an emergency session and suspended the Jones Act? Surely, there would have been enough votes. When it is an act of Congress that created the law, it should be an act of Congress that brings the suspension of the act. We have three branches of government, and whenever possible, the legislative branch should be fulfilling its role, so the president doesn't feel compelled to step in with an executive order. I am guessing that when an emergency exists, he has the right, given him by legislation, to do what he did. (But, I don't know that.)
   Either way, Congress should step in, and do its own job.

In Listening, there is Unity -- that's the Lesson from the NFL

  In the national anthem drama dividing the nation, there comes a lesson for unifying the nation. It seems the NFL teams know only one script: Team spirit. As in all sports, everything they do is as a team. Has there every been a game in all of sports played that didn't end with the star player saying, "It's not about me; It's about the team"?
  Sometimes, it seems not.
  Sometimes, I think the most important part of current events is what you learn from them. So, if we want to learn how to be united as a nation, the NFL teams have given us a blueprint. Last Sunday, they taught us how. In probably every locker room in the NFL, the players held team meetings, listening to each other's feelings, in hopes of coming to a consensus. They listened, and listened and listened. And, they talked out their differences.
  And, they listened respectfully. You won't come to a consensus if you don't respect each other.
  Don't let it go unnoticed on us that the name of this country is the United States of America. United, it says. That implies being on the same team, if you will. And, if we are to be united, we must think as a team. Just as those who wanted to stand for the anthem and those who wanted to kneel both listened to each other, so must we -- if we are to be the United States -- listen to each other. Just as the two sides learned to empathize with each other in the NFL, so should we learn to empathize.
   And, to accept each other.
  And, to say, "It's not about me (It's not just about my point of view); It's about the team (It's about what we as a whole nation should do)."
   The players considered what they could do as a team. They all wanted to act together, as one. What a concept? What if we thought that way, as a nation? What if we came together, saying, "Okay, some of us think this way, and some of us think that way. Is there anything we can do to respect both sides, both views?"
   After all, we're a team. We are the United States of America.

Flag Flap: Former Army Ranger's Words are Words of Peace

   The national anthem flap -- Flag Flap, if you will -- has divided the nation, separated us into two camps. Blessed are the peacemakers, it is said, and I cannot help but wonder if the best voice to take isn't the one seeking to pull us back together, to unify us. So, I offer the below words from Alejandro Villanueva as perhaps as good of peacemaking words as I have heard. Alejandro, a former Army Ranger, was the Pittsburgh Steeler who drifted out of the tunnel and held his hand over his heart during the national anthem. Two quotes from him, both from the same press conference.
   "So out of all these players in the NFL who are taking a knee, I don't think as a veteran I take offense. In a big picture where there's a customized different thing, nobody thinks when you're taking a knee you're offending the flag. And they're saying it. And I don't think that anybody that's standing for the flag is not respecting the fact that there is a lot of unjustices and racial divide in our country. So we're essentially talking about two completely different things."
   And, the second quote says much the same.
   "We're not talking about the same thing. That's the thing people need to understand when it comes to the national anthem. And I was one of the first ones who took offense when Colin Kaepernick took a knee. I was one of the first ones who did an interview and, to a certain degree, I never criticized but I didn't agree with it. People don't understand, but the people who are taking a knee are not saying anything negative about the military, not saying anything negative about the flag. They're just trying to protest the fact that there are some injustices in America. And for people to stand up for the national anthem, it doesn't mean they don't believe in these racial injustices, they're just trying to do the right thing."

http://www.espn.com/blog/pittsburgh-steelers/post/_/id/25288/full-transcript-alejandro-villanueva-on-steelers-pregame-ordeal

We Must Live Larger than Our Worst Moments

   I think tonight what it would be like if a video of all my worst moments came on each time someone saw me, as if to say, "This is what he's really like."
   I would be a pariah.
   Understandably, we are often judged by our worst moments. If we are to survive in life, we must survive our worst moments. We must forge on and become better, that our present will soften our past.

True Leadership is not Fault-finding, but Problem-Solving

   Many, when they become leaders, assume their position means they are there to judge people, to correct people and to put people in their place.
   Not so.
   Oh, it is good to correct things. Yes, that is leadership. But if you would be a leader, do not seek the faults of others, just to be running up a score of how many errors you can find. Do not think that is your job. The word "leader" implies that you lead them away from their faults. True leaders only seek faults so they can correct them, not so they can condemn those who have them.
   If you get people to change, that is leadership. Leadership is not tallied by how many faults you find in people, but by how many faults you take out of them.
  It could be said the leader who finds a fault, but simply fires the person or condemns that person, is not a leader at all, for the word "leader" implies leading them to do things right. Managers fire. Leaders correct. Perhaps more correctly stated, managers who don't know how to lead, fire. True leaders, instead of firing, inspire those under them to become better.
   Leadership is not fault-finding, but problem-solving.
(Note: This is a rework of a blog originally written in 2011.)

On this Sunday, Alejandro Villanueva was a Star

   So, the Pittsburgh Steelers voted to stay up in the tunnel, instead of coming out on the field for the national anthem. But one guy, former Army Ranger Alejandro Villanueva, bent the rule. He came out by the tunnel, placed his hand over his heart, and stood for the national anthem.
  So much for team unity.
  You have to love Villanueva. At least, I do. His is one of the most joyful stories coming out of the NFL's Sunday drama.
   I don't believe in requiring all players to join in the same response. To me, this issue is largely about freedom of speech, about freedom of expression. How that meshes with requiring everyone to think the same, I don't understand. To me, the right side of the issue is the one that says everyone is entitled to their opinion -- and their opinions are not of the devil.
   The only opinions I don't like are the ones that limit the opinions of others. Yes, I confess, that means I'm not with those who say the players shouldn't be expressing their opinions by going to a knee.
   I don't agree with a president who would force them to be patriotic -- his idea of being patriotic. You don't force someone to hold your your opinion. You don't force patriotism. That's unAmerican.
   So, the same thing goes with Villanueva. Let him have his opinion. Let him be free to express it however he will. Hold a team vote and make everyone fall in line with the majority? Nope, I'm not with that. Instead, encourage each team member to do as he will. Encourage them to be accepting of each other, though they differ in their opinions and how they express them.
   If someone wants to stay in the locker room, let him. If someone wants to take a knee, let him. If someone want to stand in rapt attention, hand over his heart, let him. I'll applaud them all.
   Now, if someone brings out a small flag and holds it up for all to see, and then lights it on fire . . . of course, I won't applaud that.

NFL Players Should not be Forced to Stand During the National Anthem

   Patriotism at the point of firing? Show us your patriotism or we will fire you? I am not among those who feel the NFL players should be forced to do what the president says. And, that is supposing the players are being unpatriotic. I do not believe they are. I believe they are merely wanting to state their beliefs on violence against black people. And, we jump on them and say, "This proves you are unpatriotic. This shows you have no respect for the flag, nor for the Constitution, nor for those who have spilled blood to give you your right to think this way."
   Mind you, they are guilty of none of the above. It is we who are assigning to them these beliefs, these faults. Standing and saluting the flag is a cultural norm. Culture dictates that you do it or be considered unpatriotic, be considered someone who does not respect those who have died on the battlefield. But, free speech means that the act of saluting the flag can mean something else to you. You do not have to subscribe to other people's beliefs that say you are unpatriotic for not saluting the flag. You can have your own opinion as to whether you are belittling the deaths of those who died on the battlefield. Freedom of speech means you can be very appreciative of those who died, yet have other things in mind when you decide whether to stand during the National Anthem. A salute from one person can mean he respects those who died on the battlefield. Failing to salute from another person can mean he is simply displeased with the nation's failure to act to prevent racial crime. Freedom of speech means someone else's meaning does not need to be yours. If they assume you are not patriotic, that is their fault. Even as we believe in free speech, we should not require everyone to adhere to the same forms of expression, the same cultural ways of expressing patriotism. We should not require others to adopt our tokens of patriotism.
  Some argue that the national anthem is not the time nor the place for protest. I would suggest that, too, is a matter of opinion. Deciding when and where someone else should protest also can amount to limiting their free speech. I don't think we should be too quick to dictate to them the times and places we find acceptable for them to be protesting. If the timing of their protest breaks a necessary law, then, yes, that is wrong. If they rise up in the middle of a play and disrupt the public peace in order to express an opinion, yes, that is wrong. But, if their timing harms no one, their free speech should not be squelched or limited.
  It is wrong for a president of the United States to coerce people to be patriotic. It is even more wrong, then, when he tries to coerce them to be patriotic and the charge that they are not patriotic is false.

What Happened in the NFL Today Should have Us Reflecting on This

   What, then, of police violence targeting blacks more than whites? Is it true? What are your thoughts? I wish this were a format in which I could get your opinions before proceeding. I do think, though, in light of what has transpired the last few days, this is an issue we should again be taking up in earnest.
   It is the root of the problem. Football players are taking a knee in protest of police violence against blacks. Are blacks more prone to receiving ill treatment? We should want to know. If it is true, then it is a grave injustice, and we should want to change it, and we should, perhaps, thank those who are bringing it to light and demanding change.
   Is it wrong to think of those who bring about justice as heroes? I guess before we give them such distinction, we should consider whether their cause is, indeed, just, whether there is discrimination in our land that yet needs to be taken away.
   My thought is: Is it impossible to fully root out the ill will towards and discrimination against blacks? You can have 10 million and one who treat the blacks equally with whites, but if just one person holds enough contempt for them that he goes out and hurts them, you have a problem.
  And, you have someone going down on one knee during the national anthem.
   And, so it is with our police. If they are predominantly pure and honorable, but if, the same, there remains here and there an officer who has any ill feelings towards blacks, you have the potential for unjustified police violence.
   Or, more accurately stated, the probability.
   What do you do then? Just thinking off the top of my head, I'd say there are a number of things you can do.
   Begin by setting in place policies to avoid the unjust shooting of anyone. Do not train your police to take lives too easily. Train them not to harm another soul unless it is absolutely necessary, with no real choice to the contrary. Train them that life is sacred. More than that, we need to train all of our country in these things. I fear the sentiment that you shoot anyone who trespasses your property is a dangerous one. Their being on your property -- especially if they are there to rob you -- is wrong. But, no, it does not justify your killing them.
   Train the officers that just because a person does not stop from fleeing, that is not cause to kill them -- unless his getting away will clearly and imminently jeopardize the lives of others.
   If you have policies in place against anyone being shot and killed unjustly, that will go a long way towards avoiding that blacks are killed unjustly.
   But, do address the race issue. In your hiring, ask questions to determine if racial bias exists. Weed out those with bias. What could be worse than a white supremacist becoming a police officer? But, I will tell you, it is not the white supremacist you should fear -- for perhaps those are all being weeded out -- but it is the person who has ill feelings towards blacks that are not easily discerned. Be the careful questioner, as a hiring person, and weed out these.
   Then, train in race relations. On regular, scheduled occasions, sit all the officers down and verbalize how all people are equal, how blacks are not to be held in contempt, or discriminated against. Although I do believe in such a thing as false accusations -- I do believe there are times when blacks falsely accuse whites of being racist -- do not dwell too much on this, as it can stir up feelings against the blacks. Acknowledge it happens if someone brings it up, but warn that this is not an excuse to operate against the blacks with malice in any way.
   When someone points out that people should not be burning down their cities in racial protests, acknowledge this as well. But, again, warn them well that such things should not engender in them feelings of malice towards black people. Remind them that people of all races, including whites, engage in such behavior.
   And, if they are suggesting blacks are more inclined, take note. Follow up by trying to find out if there is a deep-seated resentment of blacks in your officer.
   The war against racism is a difficult one. As I said, it only takes one bad officer for things to go wrong. But, the same, you must do everything you can to root out racism. If you do not at least try, you most surely will fail.
  One parting thought: If in your reflections, you find that you have been guilty of having thoughts that it is the blacks who tear up their communities, do not fault yourself too much. I will confess I do not know what statistics say in this regard, to know whether there is justification for such thinking. I know, however, it is a dangerous thought, the same. If you will, then, remove that line of thinking from your mind, or at lease resolve that you will not let it be an impetus for ill feelings against black people.
  We must root out, as much as we can, any discriminatory thoughts, any ill-will towards others. We should probably confess we probably all have some such feelings. If we are pure in our feelings toward black people, then we probably have someone else -- whether it is a class of society or not --that we have ill feelings toward. If each of us, and all of us, strove to find such things in ourselves, and root them out, what a difference that would make.
   Hail the nation that makes racial equality a cherished goal, that is not satisfied with what has been achieved, but seeks to root out racial inequality entirely.

What if We Dealt with Kim as if it Were a Hostage Situation?

   I wonder if we should take hostage negotiation principles and apply them to the North Korean crisis.
   Step 1: Active Listening. Go to Kim jong un and listen to him. Ask him what he is thinking, and why he feels that way. Make sure he is aware we are listening to him.
   Step 2: Empathy: Express understanding for why Kim feels the way he does. We don't have to agree with him, but we can understand his reasoning.
   Step 3: Rapport: Develop a feeling of trust. Build on steps 1 and 2 to where Kim starts to trust us (or trusts whomever we have sent there to negotiate with him).
   Step 4: Influence: Once the negotiator has developed trust, then start influencing Kim to change, or to go another direction, instead of seeking to nuke the U.S. and other nations. This is the point at which you reason with him, carefully warning him about the consequences.
   Step 5: Behavioral Change: Kim drops his plans for nuking us. This is the goal, anyway.
   It occurs to me that this model adheres to the old adage, "I don't care how much you know, until I know how much you care."

T

Make the Diamond So it Becomes Hard

I shouted at the mountain
I laughed at the sea
I screamed at the rainbow
And the birds a flying free

Make the pence a penny
Make the diamond hard
You don't change by changing
Three feet into a yard

(Indexes: Quote, poem)

Rockets take Fuel, so Consider Taking the Fuel from North Korea

  Wonder whether President Trump's sanctions mean we will cut off their oil. If I understand correctly, he, in essence, is saying if you trade with North Korea, we won't trade with you. That forces countries to choose between a small trading partner and a big one. Which will they pick?
  Does it mean no more oil for the North? For the past week, I've thought and discussed with others what this would mean. No oil means no fuel to fire missiles. If you know you can ground their military, you do it. Or, do we have reason to fear the repercussions? If we do this, will North Korea simply launch all their warheads while the little bit of oil they have remains? Also, we do not know how much oil they have stockpiled, for surely they have seen the possibility this could happen.

Usually, You Should Save the Life Regardless the Expense

One reason hospice is less expensive on its patients than death is for many others, is you sometimes (not always) sign away your rights to curative care. Curative care can be very expensive, even if you are living at home and just seeing the doctor. The thing is, I do not like us having to sign away our rights to life-saving measures. I do, indeed, wonder if this (getting us to sign away our rights to curative care because the expense is too great for the hospitals) played a large role in how hospice came about. The hospitals often feel they cannot afford to keep patients alive. Some people have no insurance. And, if the insurance companies were paying for it, would it drive them broke, instead of the hospitals?
Here is the thing: Life-saving treatments are pretty much the most expensive of all treatments. Think of a heart replacement. Are we to give every person dying of heart problems a new heart? The expense for health care would go through the roof. Still, I confess, a part of me (good part), wants to save every person that can be saved, regardless the cost. You have heard of living wills, I am sure. I cannot help but wonder if part of the reason for them coming about was as a vehicle for the medical industry to sell do not resuscitate and hospice. They persuade you to sign up for your death bed long before you reach it.
I do not know that we should try to save everyone. Perhaps it is, indeed, too great of an expense. But I clearly believe we ought to save more lives than we do. Maybe there is a point where the expense to the industry is too great. Still, we ought to be ginger about denying anyone life-saving treatment -- regardless the cost.

Universal Hospice Care is Well on the Way

   Universal hospice care? Does everyone have the right to it? Should they? How expensive would this be? Who would pay for it?
   There are some private insurance companies that provide coverage, but hospice is mainly financed through Medicaid. Families who have benefited from hospice, praise it. Should not others also have access to hospice care for their dying families members?
   Already, nearly 42 percent of the terminally-ill in the United States receive some form of hospice. That is a lot. One wonders if we are not already well on our way to providing universal coverage. Much of this has come about as a result of Obamacare, which in 2010 established that patients no longer have to make a choice between hospice and curative care.
   I have reservations about hospice. But, it is a hard program to stand up against. Should I? Or should I accept that it is a great program? Millions have benefited from it. Millions have turned to hospice care workers to do the nursing as their family members come to the end of their lives. The hospice workers change the diapers. They change the bags. They provide the baths. They do the things we often don't have time to or are just as glad to see others do.
   Hospice for everyone? Do we continue, then, to leave it primarily for Uncle Sam to pay for it? Can he afford it? Should we require all insurance companies to offer it, in order to reduce the expense on Uncle Sam? Would that drive up rates too much? Shall we do it, anyway?
   Ultimately, its your money, America. Do you want to pay for this? Or, do you suppose you have found a way to not pay for it, by having Uncle Sam foot the bill, and letting it add to the national debt instead of being paid for on the spot?

You Won't Shelter all the Homeless if You Cut Off Their Drugs

  Some of the homeless have surely been coming to the Rio Grande district because it has been the place to get their drugs. Others have stayed away from the area for that very same reason. 
  If we sanitize the shelters from drugs, many of those who are addicted are not going come, and will be left out on the streets. I'm not saying don't make the shelters drug-free. I'm just saying realize that doing so leaves many of the homeless fleeing away from your services.

Broaden Hospice to Include Everyone Who Nears Death

   I consider on the benefits of hospice again tonight. I consider how I would not want to change someone else's diaper, and would welcome a hospice worker coming and doing it for me. I consider that there are many time the hospice workers provide such services. I think of the last case of hospice I have known, of how the lady was not getting her diapers changed in a timely fashion at the medical facility, and of how once she signed on with hospice, that changed.
   And, I wonder. I wonder what if we were to keep hospice. (And, we will, for it almost seems I am the only person on the planet with reservations about the program.) If we are to keep it, could we do just one thing?
   Get rid of the ban on curative care. No longer require patients to renounce curative treatment. Instead, at each juncture, let them choose anew whether they want treatment. Let treatment always remain an option.
   Actually, it might be hospice is already going that direction. I don't know if it is true, but one hospice care-giver told me that there are different hospice programs, and sometimes a patient can continue to receive life-saving treatments.
   That would be wonderful.
   Instead of hospice being only for those who choose to let go of life, it would broaden to include all those who are approaching death. It would comfort and care for everyone. It would include those not ready to accept death as well as those not wanting to continue their lives.

Bless the Hospice Workers, but I Wonder on the Industry

I would comment on hospice tonight. I wonder at it. It offers comfort and care, but aren't those things everyone is going to give you anyway? Even without hospice, everyone is going to try to make things comfortable for you. I sometimes wonder what hospice can do. It is another arm around the shoulder, another kiss on the cheek, I guess. But, I wonder. I wonder what good it really does?

Bless those who work in hospice. I cannot think of anything more noble than to serve and care for those who are dying. And, those who place their family in hospice are only seeking their happiness. Bless them for this.

But the industry, itself? I wonder on it. We have people dying, and a business comes along and says, "If government or someone pays us, we will come in and comfort you. This will let you die in dignity."

Oh, there are those in all levels of these companies -- not just the hospice workers, themselves -- who are honorable, who truly seek to serve and comfort the dying. Still, I cannot help but wonder at this industry. People are dying, and someone finds a way to make a buck off them.

If the Monuments are to be Reduced, it is Congress that Should do it

   Diminishing the size of the national monuments, including the Grand Staircase Escalante Monument, would be wrong, simply because the president has no such authority. The Antiquities Act of 1906 gives presidents power to create monuments.
   But, it gives no such power to undo monuments, nor to reduce their size.
   Power not granted is power not granted.
   If President Trump wants the size of the monuments reduced, he should bring his proposals to Congress, and ask for congressional action.
   The same should be said of Utah's leaders. Rather than appealing to President Trump to correct what they perceive as an error, they should appeal to Congress. If Utah's congressional delegation opposes the monument designations, it is they who should be introducing legislation to repeal or reduce those monuments. 

Those Who Cry 'Illegal' Might be Advocating that Which is Illegal

What part of the word "illegal" don't you understand? I'm asking that question from a little different perspective than usual, and I'm asking it of those who oppose unlicensed immigration. If we have certain unalienable rights, and if it is wrong to try to take those rights away from us, then we should consider that our laws against immigration are illegal.
If just wanting to breathe and exist on American soil is life, if just wanting to not be arrested and deported when you have done nothing wrong is liberty, and if just wanting to come to America is the pursuit of happiness, then these are unalienable rights. They cannot be altered by borders, nor by government, nor by the popular opinion.
Who is being illegal? Who is advocating illegal activity? With this thought, perhaps it is those who oppose unlicensed immigration, not those who practice it.

What Part of the Preamble Don't You Understand?

   What part of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence don't you understand? Is it the part where all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
   Is it the word "unalienable" you don't understand? That means nobody can take them away. Those rights belong to everyone, regardless where they travel to or what borders they cross to get there. Freedom comes with you when you move, when we are speaking of  these unalienable rights. Governments cannot take them away, because they are fixed and unalterable and God-given.
   If a person just wants to exist here, then that is "life." If a person just wants to not be arrested and deported when he has done nothing wrong, then that is "liberty." And, if a person comes to America in search of a better life, then that is "the pursuit of happiness."
   Those rights cannot be taken away by borders or governments. They go with you wherever you go. Unalienable rights don't change with the shifting of the sand, nor with lines drawn in the sand. (I speak of the sands where Mexico and the United States meet.) Borders can define where a country begins and where it ends, but they cannot redefine the word "unalienable." They cannot redefine who can and who cannot enjoy the blessings and freedoms that are God-given.

Only having One Acceptable Candidate isn't Choice

  I read in an email from the United Utah Party a wonderful thought from Jan Garbett. Jan would have us add choice to our elections. And, you thought we already had that? Well, a choice between someone you don't approve of and someone you do, isn't real choice. A choice of one isn't choice. If there is only one person on the ballot you would vote for, that doesn't really qualify as offering you choice. If we want real choice -- if we want more meaningful democracy -- we need two people we like on the ballot.
  Our elections will take on more meaning if we expand the ballot offering beyond a party we like and a party we don't. When we reach a point where other candidates get enough exposure, and a point where we, as voters, consider these other candidates, then we will have refined democracy to a higher level.

There Should be Three Stages in the Effort to Stop the North

  I've wondered at what point we say, Enough is enough, and make a preemptive strike on North Korea. But, as peaceful measures should be tried before military ones, have we tried all the sanctions that might make a difference?
   Should oil exports to the North be banned?
   "Such a ban would potentially halt North Korea's tanks and other military vehicles and ground its air force. It would also bring a good proportion of the nation's industry to a standstill, halt trains and agricultural vehicles needed to bring in crops, and make the coming winter feel even more bitterly cold than usual," says an article at dw.com.
   It seems to me, there are three steps you should take in an international crisis such as this: 1.-- Negotiations and talks. 2.-- Sanctions and other such pressures. 3. -- Preemptive strikes. You do all you can with in each stage before moving on to the next. That said, have we done enough negotiating and talking? Have we appealed to North Korea? I believe President Trump is asking China and Russia to appeal to the North. If you can't reach them, yourself, send in those who are friends of North.
   And, if that doesn't work, amp up the sanctions. How will the North respond? The Korean Central News Agency reports that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the North said Pyongyang would hit the U.S. with "the greatest pain and suffering it had ever gone through in its entire history."
   It is a threat. Is it a wild one, or one they can make good on? At any rate, we cannot afford to do nothing.

For Them, the Pursuit of Happiness has been Declared Illegal

I don't understand deporting people who come because they love America, want to work, or seek to rejoin family. Why make those things illegal? Coming here is the pursuit of happiness spoken of in the Declaration of Independence. Why make that illegal?

Cybercrime should be the Most Attractive of Professions

   Cyber crime should be the most attractive of professions. How many times is the assailant caught? One wonders but what usually the investigation doesn't begin to find who committed the crime -- if there is an investigation at all.
  And, how much can you make? I wonder if anyone has made a estimate, and if they have, is it but a stab-in-the-dark estimate. How much money is lost to cyber crime each year? I word search, and learn the cost is expected to reach $2 trillion by 2019.

I Think it Okay to Wonder of Climate Change and Biblical Prophecy

  Temperatures worldwide could go up an average 14 degrees by 2100? So, I read, in an article that lays it at the feet of climate change.
  The extreme hurricanes, and extreme flooding are being laid at the feet of climate change.
  I do not know. It might be a little premature to place the blame for world disasters so squarely on climate change. Still, I tend to believe it.
  And, I find myself turning to the scriptures, to Matthew 24.
  "(A)nd there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." (verse 7)
  "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." (verse 21)
  Surely, the great tribulations include more than natural disasters, as there are to be wars and rumors of war and other commotions.
  Still, I cannot help but consider on climate change, and wonder but what some of its more extreme outcomes might just now be bending into view. I wonder what we see by 2100. Temperatures rising 14 degrees? I can see how that might lead to famines and pestilences. Famines and pestilences can be the product of weather, as much as anything.
   So, climate change and the problems it brings fit well with the prophecies of the last days. We may not know for certain that climate change and the weather outcomes will mesh with biblical prophecy, but I think it okay to wonder.

Did Americans Just go Ho-Hum on this Big Story?

No less than 143 million Americans had their personal information left open to possible identity theft in the past weeks. I've heard that amounts to more than half the adults in America. I read a story, and then open the online comments.

There's only one. I add my own:

Esquire, I consider that yours is the only comment I see. I wonder if we are not taking this seriously enough, hardly even showing an interest in it. I have had possible breaches on two separate bank accounts the past two weeks, so I am taking it serious. I wonder how big of play this story got. I must not have paid this news much mind when it broke, but am now going back to see what was written. Seems if half the adults in the U.S. had their information compromised, that should be a major, major story. We -- as a country -- are focused on Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma and all the disasters. That is good to be concerned about them. But, I wonder if this might end up being bigger. I wonder but what someday we might be hit with a financial disaster stemming from such things as the Equifax breach and other Internet breaches. It could bring this country to its knees if a sizable share of all bank accounts were emptied simultaneously (or even if it were not simultaneously).

And, here's a quote from the Associated Press story:

"On a scale of one to 10, this is a 10 in terms of potential identity theft," said Gartner security analyst Avivah Litan. "Credit bureaus keep so much data about us that affects almost everything we do."

Note: I corrected the spelling of Equifax. In the online comment, I spelled it Equafax.
Note II: It turns out, one of the two possible breaches on my bank accounts was not a breach.

God Provided More than Just a Church; He Provided Eternal Life

   There are biblical passages that only seem to have meaning if you know of things in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Hebrews 11:39-40 is such a passage.
   Verse 29 speaks of how the people had obtained a good report, but "received not the promise." The use of the word "promise" perhaps is just coincidence, but, just the same, it does fall in line with a term used by the LDS: "holy spirit of promise." The holy spirit of promise is the power by which ordinances  (such as baptism and eternal marriage) are performed  and sealed.
   The next verse -- at least for those in this church -- clearly is a reference to such ordinance work, and work for the dead. To those outside this church, I cannot see that it would have any understandable meaning.
   It says, " God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." Those of us who are LDS believe we need to be sealed to our families, and thus sealed to the ancestors who came before us. Thus, they without us (and vice versa) cannot not be made perfect.
   There is more to the gospel than just getting a testimony and having faith and joining the church  after you hear a report of the church and what it is about. Through the ordinances, there is the promise of living with our families eternally.
   Even so, these verses say that although a good report was received through their faith, the promise was yet to be received. But, God provided more (than just being a member of the church). We can be made perfect though others (the fathers can be made perfect by being sealed to the generations that come after them).

Let Volunteers Spend Time with the Homeless

  There is benefit to having someone always with the homeless, talking to them, sharing time with them, just being with them -- and guiding them. As I think on this, I consider that if they have someone with them all day long, that is much the same as them being back in their homes, with those who care for them being there for them.
   I think of the radio ad, "Give your family everything. Give them your time." If people need time when they are in their own homes, they continue to need it when they fall out of their homes and onto the streets.
   And, I think of what might be a new term: homeless homes. If we were able to provide companionship for them, all day long, it would, in a way, be like giving them homes. They would be in what we could call homes for the homeless.
   Giving them someone to be with them would be no small task. You cannot afford to pay people to come in and spent so much time with them. You can't. Budgets and deficits and too much government spending tell us to not even try.
   Volunteers? This seems the only answer, but a difficult one, at that. You would benefit from all the publicity the homeless situation has received here in the Salt Lake Valley. It would drive up the number of people who want to step in and help.
  But, say we only tried to have but one volunteer per every 10 homeless people, giving the volunteers each three-hour shifts. That is still a lot of volunteers. It would be a project so big, I don't know if we could meet it.
   I think of myself, and how I would not have time to volunteer much, if any.
   But, I also consider on this: Many of the homeless are there because their families asked them to leave. The families were overwhelmed -- overwhelmed and frustrated. In many cases, they did not have the required time to spend with the them. If you are to send them to a place that will provide what the family was not able to provide, you must provide that it be a place that does provide day-long companionship.
   Solving homelessness is as easy as providing them friends. And, it is as hard as that.
 

Separate the Sellers from the Buyers and the Market Dies

  When I first heard they wanted to close Rio Grande Street to traffic, I thought they meant only to close it to vehicles. Turns out, they will fence it off, entirely. No more foot traffic if you aren't one of the homeless.
   I can see the wisdom in this. If you take away the opportunity for crime, you take away the crime. If the drug pushers cannot access the homeless, they cannot sell to them. If you separate the sellers from the buyers, the drug market dies.
   At least at that location. At least to the homeless who stay within the prescribed quarters. And, there is the rub. As soon as the homeless venture far enough away, they are vulnerable. So, consider this: Some of the homeless have some desire to steer clear of drugs. If they run into drugs, they are tempted. But, keep them removed from the drug scene, and you do them a favor.
  Other homeless want the drugs, and will leave the shelter to seek them out. So, if you want to find your drug pushers, you simply follow the homeless when they leave. For all we know, this is how the police made their big raid the other day.
 

A Storm so Powerful, it brings even Miami to its Knees

   A hurricane so large it has shown up on monitors that measure earthquakes. A hurricane the size of Texas. A hurricane with winds of 185 mph, only bettered by Hurricane Allen's 190 mph winds in the 1980s.
   If my memory serves me correctly, last year when a hurricane hit Florida, most residents didn't flee, and didn't get ruffled. They've gone through them before, and it was just another.
   This time, though, they are fleeing. Hurricane Irma could prompt one of the largest mass evacuations in U.S. history.
   Only three hurricanes in history have hit U.S. coasts as category 5 storms. And, although Irma has dropped to 150 mph winds, making it  a category 4, it will still pack more wallop than most hurricanes.

(Rewritten 9/8/17)

Do not Compromise the Privacy Rights of the Homeless

  Interesting to read in the Salt Lake Tribune how officials are planning on issuing ID cards to the homeless.
   In a blog I wrote, I considered having a listing of the homeless, making them registered, in a way. I thought having registered homeless people was a novel idea. But, apparently, it isn't.
  In my system, you would simply be listed. I had not thought of ID cards. And, having heard of the cards, I would guess they will be optional, not required of everyone staying at the shelter.
   The article quoted a statement from the ACLU of Utah as saying the ID card process "may have been initiated without the proper privacy protections in place." I'm not sure what protections the ACLU is seeking. The article doesn't say.
   The card-issuing process does survey the homeless, asking them questions that are evidently standard to them when they are seeking services. But, questions about why they came here, and where they came from evidently are not standard.
   I would guess the ID cards would be legal if they are not required. As for the information provided, I wonder if it should held away from law enforcement agencies. Or, at very least, if it is to be given to them, the homeless should be told it will be. The concern is that their privacy not be compromised. The concern is wrongful search and seizure.
   And, the surveys should be optional. When services are provided, only the information needed in order to extend the services should be required. And, it should be made clear to the homeless which questions must be answered in order to receive services, and which are optional.
   The data bases used for serving the homeless should not be tied in with those the police have, nor should the information be turned over to the police.

Our Idea of What Justice is Might be a Little Fuzzy

  We would kick them out of America? We believe in taking those who came as children, and kicking them out of America -- the only home they have, and the only country they love?
  This is our idea of justice? This is how we practice law and order here? This is just how we do it in America?
   Somewhere in all this, we might just come around to realizing this is injustice.
   But, we should think not only of the dreamers, but also of the others who came here illegally, and ask ourselves the same kind of questions: We would take people who came here because they love this country, and we would take those who came here to find jobs to support their families, and we would take those who endured trials crossing a border to be reunited with their families . . .
   And, we would deport them? We would call them criminals and kick them out of our country?
   Our idea of what a criminal is might not be too clear. Our idea of what justice is might be a little fuzzy.

President Trump Gives a Challenge to Congress

    A tweet from a president:  
"Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do). If they can't, I will revisit this issue!"
   It would appear President Trump sees the benefit of DACA, a law lauded for what it does, but decried for how it was created. So, the challenge is on the table, for Congress, thanks to President Trump.
 

Salt Lake City: Where the Streets are Alive with the Finest Entertainment

  When I suggested street entertainers sing and dance and act for the homeless, I was suggesting they do it just for that reason: to serve the homeless.
   But, it does not go unnoticed on me that free street entertainment could be a boon to the city, period. It could enhance the community's image and attractiveness, period. I wonder if there is any other city where you can go see theater-quality entertainment, all day long -- right out in the streets.
   New Orleans, Austin, Boston -- where?
   I think of the free performances at Temple Square, and in the Conference Center, and in the parks up near Temple Square, coordinated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But, they aren't all outdoors and they aren't right out in the streets.
   There is a romanticism in running across a banjo player, playing on a street corner. It adds to the flavor of the town, when you see that. This would take that to a different level. Invite the street musicians, for sure. And, some of the homeless, themselves, would perform. But in addition to that, step up the entertainment to displaying your city's finest entertainers, the professional acting troupes, dancing teams, and musicians. Sprinkle in some magicians and comedians.
   Does any city offer that?
   

Take out Much of the Country, or just Kim Jong-un?

   It's called a pre-emptive strike. Unfortunately, perhaps we need to consider it with North Korea.
   But, along with considering some kind of attack, perhaps we should also consider the Osama bin Laden approach: going in and surgically removing the leader.

Street Entertainment Would Provide Live Trailers

  About as quick as I walked away from last night's blog, I realized my suggestion of street entertainers had one big, big problem: How do you get the entertainers to come in without giving them a paycheck?
  Well, consider this: Most every movie has a trailer. It's called advertising. You play part of the movie to excite people to come see the rest. The street performances could be the same. The acting troupe could play just a few minutes of their play, just enough to tease, just enough to make you want to come see the rest.
   In this way, you would actually be doing the acting companies a favor, allowing them to advertise in a very effective way and in a way currently not available.
 

Make Rio Grande Street Home Central for Street Entertainers

   If a city had acting troupes acting in the streets, and it was the first thing visitors saw, would that be a good thing? Right now, as visitors arrive at the Greyhound station, and are whisked away by their rides, the first thing they see are the homeless.
   First impressions, they say.
   So, what if we had acting troupes, musicians and comedians entertaining the homeless -- in the streets? To begin with, if they were there -- all these street entertainers -- they would be a tourist draw in and of themselves. As your ride picked you up, he would say, "You might want to see the street entertainers since we're down here. They're just a block over." And, he would drive you just a block to the east, park the car, and you would get out and walk down Rio Grande Street to see all the free entertainers.
   Rio Grande Street is closing as part of the plan to deal with the homelessness and crime, so it makes it perfect for having street entertainers there.
   An idle mind is the devil's workshop, it is said. I suggest there is some value to providing entertainment for the homeless. Get them working, if you can. I have already blogged on that. But, also provide them things to do, entertainment being one.
   If we do believe there are many among the homeless who are there simply because they are down on their luck, we should want to serve them, and lift their spirits. And, probably even those who are there of their own errant ways, we should want to cheer up and help. When you love all men, you love all mankind -- those who have strayed as well as those who have not. Remember the story of the prodigal son, and how his father threw a party for him?
   Throw a party for the homeless, for the poor, every day, all up and down Rio Grande Street.

Of Homeless Remediation Specialists & Friendship Volunteers

  I've been thinking lots on how to solve homelessness, what I would do if it were mine to solve. What would be my plan of action?
  To some extent, you cannot help someone if you do not identify them, So, the first step would be to place workers on the streets, talking to each person, identifying and cataloguing them. Call them homeless remediation specialists, perhaps. They would document each homeless person they came in contact with and start each of them on a program, hoping to remedy their homelessness.
   Have you ever heard of registering the homeless? I haven't, either. But, I believe it would help. How can you expect to help someone if you don't make contact with them, if you don't take down contact information, and say, "How can I get hold of you if I come up with some help for you?"
   So, you register the homeless. I wonder if that is a novel idea. You thus have registered homeless people and non-registered homeless people.
    Perhaps the first thing the homeless remediation specialist would do would be to mediate between the person and the family. Most every homeless person comes from a family, and the reason they are out in the streets is because of a rift in their family ties. Some have left home of their own choice, and some have been asked to leave. I know of no homeless program that seeks to put them back together, but it seems that should be the first step. I would not pressure the families to take them back, as they might have reason for having asked them to leave. I would not seek to put the families on guilt trips, but, instead, praise them for what they have already done.
   But, I would try to bring about reconciliation. I would ask the homeless person if he (or she) would be willing to go back, and I would ask the family if they would take him (or her) back. Some would say, yes. And, as simple as that, you would have solved some of the homeless problem. A segment of them would be off of the streets and back in homes -- in families -- where they are best served.
   Second, I would provide each homeless person a friend. We would have friendship volunteers, if I can call them that. Every person still on the streets after the effort to get them back into their own homes would be given a friend, someone who would keep contact with them, either visiting them or calling them on the phone. These people would ask how they are doing, and be sounding boards for the homeless to discuss their problems with, investing however much time they chose. When the homeless person had a problem, the volunteer would be free to solve it themselves, or pass it along to the remediation specialists, who would be in full-time positions.
   Third, I would provide a jobs for the homeless, as least when possible, when they would accept them and when jobs could be found. The homeless remediation specialists would come with a list of companies willing to help the poor, offering them work, having them come in and sweep floors or whatever.
   And, there's where I go to bed for the night. I might add more steps to my plan, later. Food and shelter obviously have to be provided from the get-go, unless the person is choosing to sleep on the streets.

 

Why were the Police Still Following an Outdated Law?

 I wonder if I was too easy on Officer Jeff Payne in my blog this morning.
 "I do feel we should have a little more compassion for Officer Payne," I wrote. "I don't know if his job can be saved. I don't know but what criminal charges shouldn't be filed against him. I do wonder, though, that after what he has learned, it might well be he will not make the mistake again. He might well be a good officer, despite this."
  Tonight, I read the Washington Post story. It quoted Payne's comments picked up by the body cam. They had been inaudible when I listened to the video, but the Post writer picked them out.
  "So why don't we just write a search warrant?" a fellow officer asks Payne.
  "They don't have PC," Payne replies, referring to the Logan Police Department's not having the probable cause necessary for a search warrant.
   That indicates Payne should have known it was wrong -- illegal -- to collect the blood. If you know you need probable cause to get a search warrant, and you know you don't have it, and you are pressing forward to get it anyway, where does that leave you?
  Plus, the nurse, Alex Wubbels, did read Payne the requirements for a blood draw. When she read the rules, it should have registered on him that what he was doing just might be illegal. Did he think that even without probable cause, the sample could be collected legally under implied consent? If he did, why did he not verbalize as much at that point?
  Instead, after Wubbels explains how the requirements for a legal blood drive have not been met, Payne says, "So, I take it that without those in place, I'm not going to get blood." Those words indicate he had digested what she had told him, yet he was determined to act, anyway. He then moves toward her as she backs away, trying to swat the cell phone out of her hand that she had him listening to as her supervisor warned him that what he was doing was wrong.
  Payne is a trained police phlebotomist. He was not there to collect a blood draw done by one of the hospital workers, he was there to do the blood draw himself. One wonders why the need for that. Why not just let the hospital workers do the blood draws, and hand them over to the police? Was there a point when that was the practice, then the police started sending in their own people to do the draws?
   The Utah law on implied consent changed a decade ago. In addition, a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling declared blood tests without warrants illegal. How does the police agency, then, continue to operate under the presumption that implied consent is still the rule -- a decade later? How did the Supreme Court ruling never catch up with the SLCPD?
   It becomes fair to wonder if the police were not continuing the practice blood draws despite what they had been told. This scenario seems even more likely when you consider that Payne blew off Wubbels' explanation as to why she could not permit the blood draw, as if the news was not news to him and he was going to do the blood draw, anyway.
   One wonders. The police might, indeed, have been operating under the mistaken presumption that what they were doing was legal. But, if so, how? If nothing else, there should be an investigation into why they were so belatedly following bad policy.

Questions, Questions, Questions: We Need an Investigation

  Did you hear about the University of Utah nurse who was forcefully arrested for not authorizing a blood draw that was being required by the Salt Lake Police Department? Did you hear how she was just following the law on such matters, only to be physically attacked and arrested, all the same?
   Of course, you have.
   "And they called for an investigation," sings Paul Simon. We should have one here. Or a bunch of them. There are all kinds of questions about what happened, what should have happened, and what we should do to correct our wrongs.
  How common is it that police come looking for a blood draw without being within their rights to do so? Was there an ongoing, running battle between University Hospital and the SLCPD?
   Even back in the days of implied consent, did SLCPD officers stretch the boundaries? For even under implied consent rules, they should not have been asking for a blood draw this time around.
 And, is it not just the SLCPD, but other agencies, as well, that have been violating constitutional provisions on privacy and searches? It was the Logan Police Department that was asking for the blood draw. They knew the driver was not under investigation. They knew they didn't have a warrant. They, along with the SLCPD, were still operating under the assumption the implied consent rule was still in place.
  Just last year, it became a Class A felony in Utah to assault a health care professional.  Will officer Jeff Payne be charged? Are there other laws against obstructing health care officials? Did Lt. James Tracy violate any?
   What are our laws on false arrests? Should we be charging officers with this? Or, does that imperil the officers unnecessarily?
 Why were nurse Alex Wubbels' Miranda rights not read to her before Lt. Tracy lectured her and, in part, interrogated her? Is is common that SLCPD officers fail to read the Miranda rights before such interrogations?
  And, of course, how much did Chief Brown know and why didn't he take stronger action earlier? As important as any of the questions, why were the department policies not updated earlier? And, when they were updated, what, specifically, were those changes?
  And, the perhaps the most important question of all, how is it that so many officers were on the scene and all of them stood behind what Officer Payne was doing? For even under the outdated department policies, the arrest was illegal.
  Officer Payne clearly didn't know the law from what the SLCPD had taught him. But, he is also an EMT. How is it that this training didn't get through to him in that position, as well? Was it just his failure to learn or does this indicate more than just one agency is failing to properly train their people?
   With all this said, I do feel we should have a little more compassion for Officer Payne. I don't know if his job can be saved. I don't know but what criminal charges shouldn't be filed against him. I do wonder, though, that after what he has learned, it might well be he will not make the mistake again. He might well be a good officer, despite this.  I say that realizing his comment on taking the homeless to the University Hospital and "good" patients elsewhere was out of line and does need to be considered and addressed.

Everyone Needs a Friend, Including the Homeless

   Step Two. If you would deal successfully with homelessness, give each one of the homeless a friend.
   Football players have coaches. Students have teachers. Children have parents. Most any time someone endeavors to do something, there is someone there to show them how, someone there to help them.
   Surely, few groups of people are more in need of guiding and comforting hands than are the homeless.
   Everybody needs a friend. Everybody. If the homeless are to find a way out, they, too, need friends.
   Step One in fighting homelessness is to mediate between the homeless and their families, simply checking to see if the two parties can be reconciled so the homeless person can return home.
  Step Two is to assign each one a friend. These would be volunteers, not paid professionals. I imagine, in seeking out volunteers, you could have a large ad campaign proclaiming, "Adopt the Homeless."
  And, perhaps a subtitle of, "Befriend the Poor."
   Excuse me for thinking so -- if it is something you think silly -- but the principle of love is a key to solving many of the world's problems. I think we should look at love and consider how to implement it in most of our problems.
   And, that includes the problem of the homeless. And, how can you provide love if you don't provide friends?

Ronald Reagan Consistently Supported Legalization of the Immigrant

  “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though some time back they may have entered illegally.” So said Ronald Reagan during a presidential debate.

  Then, you might recall, when he was elected, he signed an amnesty bill, freeing three million immigrants to continue living in the United States. Not to say the bill did not strive to do other things, not so friendly to immigrants, such as secure the borders.

  “We have consistently supported a legalization program,” Reagan said at the time of the new legislation. “The legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows, without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. Very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight.”