Wednesday, February 28, 2018

A Voice Reminiscent to that of Paul Revere

  Back in the days of the founding of our country, Paul Revere rode to Lexington and Concord, yelling out his warning, "The British are coming: The British are coming."
  I see in this week's tweet from Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf a likeness, even an echo of Revere's refrain. She warned the families of her city of an imminent ICE raid. As well she might have yelled, "The Customs agents are coming; The Customs agents are coming."
   Her warning, it is said, saved perhaps 800 from being captured.
   It may seem a little wrong to compare the one with the other. To many, those being raided by ICE were criminals, guilty of (if nothing else) being in a country they do not belong in. But, to me, there are likenesses. The colonial Americans were yet somewhat new in America, and seeking to assert their freedom, even as the British troops invaded to take it away. Even so, the immigrants are new to America, and hopeful of asserting their freedom here, even as ICE agents would hunt them down.
   The two events are like book ends, one taking place on the Eastern Seaboard at the beginning of our nation; The other taking place on the Western Seaboard at the most recent hour of our history. Both the colonial Americans and the so-called illegal aliens seek no more than freedom. Both rise up against the ruling government in hopes of securing that liberty. And, just as the colonial Americans were considered treasonous for opposing British rule, even so Mayor Schaaf is being accused of treason for warning of the impending ICE raid.
    Some have suggested her guilty of obstruction of justice. I do not know that they are wrong. Perhaps, she is guilty as accused. But, even so, there remains in her gesture an echo from 1775; There remains in her voice a voice reminiscent to that of Paul Revere.

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

This is the Mark of a Free Country

   The mark of a free nation is not that it doesn't take freedoms away, but that it only takes freedoms away when there is good reason to do so. A nation that is not free rips freedoms away on the whim of the dictator. The decision to take them emanates from the power to do so. The dictator does not need to justify why he is taking the freedoms, he only asserts that by virtue of his being the authority figure, he has the power to do so.
  In a free country, by contrast, there must be reason for taking freedoms away. To do otherwise is to mark yourself as not completely a free country.
  And, I will point to an example of the U.S. not being completely a free country, if we are to using this definition. We prohibit some immigration based on our power to do so. We say we do not have to let others in, because it is our country -- we are the rulers, in essence -- and, therefore no more than that is necessary.
   It might be argued that it is not with power, alone, that we ban immigrants. We might, indeed, argue that we take away their freedom to come to America because they are taking our jobs, ruining our economy, overrunning our land, stealing our welfare, and committing murders and rapes and thefts once they get here. I would differ. I suggest that while we accuse them of all these offenses, we still assert that we need no more reason to lock them out than that it is our right to do so. We say this is our land, not theirs, and it is simply within our authority to say whether they come.

If there are to be Freedoms, there Must also be Limits to Freedom

   If there are principles of freedom, there are also principles by which freedom should be taken away.
   With freedom comes the ability to abuse freedom. A person who is free to say whatever he will might choose to slander, to lie, and to con. A person who is free to use a weapon might use it to murder. A person with freedom of religion might use it to kill those of another religion, or to lead his followers into suicide.
  Freedom without restraint is anarchy. Freedom taken to extreme is the loss of freedom, for if a person is free to do anything they want, they are free to murder, pillage and plunder, which acts bring to an end the freedoms of others.
   So, If there are to be freedoms, there must also be limits to freedom. And, if there are to be limits to freedom, we should consider the rules to govern when freedom should be taken away. Our nation is considering on Nikolas Cruz, and how he said he was going to become a professional school shooter, and how, therefore, his guns should have been taken away. We would take away his freedom of speech -- his right to pronounce that he would someday be a school shooter? We would take away his Second Amendment right to bear arms? Those are two of our basic freedoms. We would take them away?
   Then, we should consider what principles should govern when freedoms are taken away.
   The old rule is that your freedom ends where my nose begins. It's a good rule. I would look at it just a little differently, but not much. I would say freedom should end whenever you commit an act showing you are not to be trusted with that freedom. Nikolas Cruz committed such an act, threatening to become a professional school shooter. His freedom to bear arms should have ended as soon as he was convicted of the threat.
   But, not simply with the charge. In America, we have due process. To take away his right to bear arms, you should first have a conviction.
   Now, taking away Nikolas Cruz's right to bear arms is prior restraint. He hasn't killed anyone, hasn't shot anyone -- hasn't even shot out any windows. We are taking away his guns before he commits the crime. That is prior restraint. But, we are doing it based on a definite action -- and one prefiguring and suggesting the definite possibility of gun violence.
   Now comes a more difficult question. Do we take away the rights of a whole class of individuals based on the conduct of some of its members? Do we take away the right to immigrate because some of the immigrants are committing crimes, or using our welfare system? Not all, but some. Do we take away the right of everyone to own an assault weapon because some are using the guns in mass killings? Not all, but some.
   It is one thing to say Nikolas Cruz, an individual, committed an unlawful act, and to convict him of it, and then to take his guns away. It is quite another to take all who would own guns, and say that since some people are using their assault weapons wrongfully, no one will be allowed to have them anymore. Especially consider that it is but a small segment of the assault gun-owning population that is abusing the right to own those weapons.
   This is quite a different prior restraint. Restraining a whole class of society who don't commit offenses differs greatly from restraining specific individuals who do commit offenses.
   That does not mean there is not some precedence for taking away guns. And, perhaps, I will discuss as much in a future blog.

Monday, February 26, 2018

Red Flag Laws should Take Guns from Those who Threaten Others

   They call them red flag laws, and we should surely have one. If a person displays the symptoms of violence, we should take their guns away. I understand the Utah Legislature decided today to consider such legislation, and I endorse it.
  I do wonder but what we should only pull the guns from those who are convicted. Otherwise, you ignore due process. So, if a person is convicted of violence, or of threatening another person, or of doing or threatening to do unlawful damage to property, then the restraining order against having a gun should be placed upon the individual.
  How many of the five youngsters in Utah who threatened their schools are going to be taken to court? Under our laws, could they be convicted?  Or, are our laws against terroristic threats inadequate, and in need of being strengthened?
   If someone says something like, "I'm going to be a professional school shooter," that should fit under the law's language as an unlawful threat, and we should convict those who say such things, and take their guns away.

Trump was to have been the Candidate not Bought by Special Interests

   There's a lot of discussion as to how much money the NRA uses to influence politicians. But, I  find no discussion on how it is that Trump began his campaign with the suggestion he would not need to take corporate money, only to end up taking millions from the NRA.
   Is it true? The NRA certainly pitched a lot toward the election from a PAC. Altogether, I've heard the NRA might have contributed upwards of $30 million to defeat Hillary. How much of it went directly into Trump's campaign chest? Seems there should be a federal website where we could easily look up such contributions. Anybody know where to find it?
   At any rate, Trump was to have been the candidate above special interest spending, not beholden to it. But, as the campaign wore on, the NRA spent a significant amount of cash to get him elected. Then, along comes the Florida shooting and the NRA spending becomes an issue.
  But, the fact that Trump once was set forth as the candidate who would be clean of special interest money, only to end up being beholden to NRA money? If that story is being told, I am not hearing it. I'm not hearing it in the mainstream media, and I'm not hearing it at all.
  Still, though I have not seen it yet, I expect to hear it at any time. This story is surely out there. Surely it is not going unnoticed. I would guess I just am not reading enough news.

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Let's not Sell Land Near the Airport for a Mess of Pottage

 It was kind of State Sen. Luz Escamilla and State Rep. Sandra Hollins to organize the town hall held this morning to discuss the Northwest Quadrant, and kind of the leaders to listen to those who attended.
  The expense of the new prison is proving to be more than expected, and it is possible our leaders are wanting to develop the land out by the airport and Great Salt Lake as a way to defray infrastructure costs for the prison, getting new development to share in the expense. My concern is that we could end up developing just to develop, without using the land to its highest use, to its potential.
   This land has value like none other in the state, and like none other in much of the western United States, in that it is open land right next to an international airport. I do not know how far you would need to go to find such land. Denver might be the nearest other international airport, but does it still have available land next to it? I don't know.
   You can utilize such land, or you can squander it. You can do no more with it than to develop light commercial, welding shops, and such. And, in so doing, you will waste it. Once it is gone, it is gone. Or, you can maximize the land. If there are things that would make the city great, and you don't leave room for them, or plan to have them, then you limit what you can become as a city. As an example of this: If the airport had been placed on the opposite side of the lake, it would limit its usefulness. It is only by being next to the city -- not 40 miles away -- that it has its greatest value. By the same point, there are uses begging to be situated next to the airport. If you would be a convention city, facilitate conventions. If you would be an international trade center, build an inland global trade port -- but also leave room where manufacturers can locate so you have things to export.
   The future goes to the person who sees its potential. Even so, if we do not see what can be done with this land, we will sell ourselves short in what we can become.  You limit yourself by what you don't think you can do. Could we manufacture cars? Why not?  Our city will be limited by what it decides it is capable of and not capable of doing.  I suggest, it could be a city that both puts in tourist attractions, and goes after corporate manufacturers. If it utilizes this land, it will will enhance opportunity to develop a vibrant, world economy.
   You are no bigger than the size of your dreams, you are no greater than what you determine to become, so let us not sell ourselves short in what we decide to do with that land.

Friday, February 23, 2018

The Ceiling is the Answer

   Thought more about the high-tech answers to mass shootings, such as having a robocop chase the criminal down. Decided it is possible he might be a little too expensive for our schools.
   But, I wonder if having the defense system throughout the ceiling might be much less expensive, and perhaps even better, anyway. Robocop would have to chase the active shooter down before taking the gun from him. If, on the other hand, a mechanical arm simply stretched out from the ceiling above -- just feet away and therefore within quick reach -- the armed shooter would be stopped quicker.
   So, here is what you do: You place sensors in the ceiling, sensors that determine when gun shots are fired. As soon as the sensors determine the gunfire, a mechanical arm comes down out of the ceiling and grabs the gun from the assailant, and captures the assailant, himself.
   Seconds into the shooting, the shooting is over.
    Ceilings would no longer be covered with drywall. The mechanical arms would be open and visible and ready to activate without having to wait for an opening in the ceiling. There would be a mechanical arm in the ceiling every few yards, so that when the sensors sensed the gunfire, that mechanical arm that was right over the shooter would be the one that reached down to stop the shooter.
   I do not know if such a system could be developed at an affordable price. But, I like to think so.

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Of Metal Shields and Cylinders to Protect from Active Shooters

   What if we had metal shields that came down in the classrooms, protecting our children? When those in the class learned a shooter was in the building, they rushed to the side of the room, the teacher pushed a button, and up came a metal shield, a metal wall, rising from floor to the ceiling.
   A simpler idea would be to have each room be able to be locked down, with metal doors. So, if you heard a shooter was in the building, you pushed a button and the room locked the live shooter out. And, line the walls with metal, so the shooter could not shoot through the walls.
  Or, what if all public buildings had cylinders that went up from the floor at moment's notice. Say, as a shopper is in the electronics department when a shot is fired elsewhere in the store. A large, always-lit sign lets him know where the cylinder is and where the button is to activate it. So, he hears a shot and urges everyone in the electronics department to join him and up goes the protective metal cylinder.
   There would be a lot of misuse of the cylinder, for sure. But, I still like the idea.
    What if you had metal walls that rose in the middle of the classroom, not just along the walls? So, the shooter is actually in the room, but you can still throw up a wall to separate yourself from him.

Could Robots Protect Our Children?

   Would it be reasonable to have robots protecting our school children? Could we have a robot capable of sensing gunfire, and following it to its source, where it takes the gun from the assailant and pins him down till the police arrive?
   Make it so the robot can either be turned off when the police arrive, or can be notified not to go after them. And, what if the robot goes after someone on the scene who is attempting to bring down the live shooter? Have it so the robot covers whoever he catches with a metal blanket, thus protecting him from the assailant if the wrong person is captured.

To Catch the Criminals, Register Guns

   If we want to be able to track down criminal gun trade, we should register guns. If we want to be able to prosecute a person who sells a weapon to a convict, we need to be able to trace the sale.
   I see no harm in registering guns. It doesn't restrict a person's right to own a gun, if that is what you  are worried about. But, the benefit is significant: Being able to trace who sold or gave the weapon to a criminal is significant.
   I realize criminals could scrape the metal clean of the registration numbers. So, make it as difficult as possible for them to do so. Place the registration number down the gun barrel, where it is hard to erase. 
 

Romney Suggested States take Up the Issue, but Legislature is Silent

   Mitt Romney suggested guns should be an issue for states to settle, rather than a matter left to the federal government to come up with all the answers.
   And, I might have heard Gov. Gary Herbert agree with him, and suggest that people are wanting government to do something.
   So, what is being done, by Utah? Don't let it go unnoticed that while all this is going on, the Utah Legislature is in session. If we are to come up with Utah answers, this would be the moment. Where are they? If Utah, in the wake of the Parkland shooting, is reflecting on how to defend its children, and its people, the Legislature is strangely silent.

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Why do Years Roll Away Without Universal Background Checks?

  President Trump is calling for better background checks. It is time, then, to squeeze him for complete, universal checks. No gun should be sold without a background check. None, at least none that we can catch.  Any sale without a check should be an illegal sale, subject to prosecution.
   Currently, all gun dealers are required to run background checks, but those who are not gun dealers, per se, are allowed to sell without doing the checks.
   This should not be. If there is value in the checks, there shouldn't be loopholes.
   When private parties make sales, they should go online and run background checks. And, if they have any question as to how to do it, they should be encouraged to go to the local sheriff's office, where officials will help them.
  And, we need help in ferreting out sales going unreported. If you are aware of a sale, you should be required by law to report it. We should have an if-you-see-something-say-something law. If you know a convict has a gun, you should report it. Lives are at stake.
   The students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, are demanding changes, demanding action, demanding that America and politicians do something. This is something that can be done, and should be done, post haste. If we have an imperfect background-checking system, why would we not want to perfect it? We have seen the flaw in our system for years -- for decades. What are we waiting for? Politicians, quit sitting on your hands, and do something.

Terroristic Threats and Idle Threats

   Nikolas Cruz, who shot up the school in Parkland, Florida had said he was going to become a professional shooter. Surely that is a terroristic threat.
   And, one that should be taken seriously.
   As we discuss whether people should be arrested for making threats against other people's lives and health and well-being, though, it becomes apparent many of us make idle threats. Are we going to haul someone off to jail every time they say, "I'm going to kill you"?
   I think you make a distinction, when you can. You specify in your law that if the threat can be taken seriously, then you prosecute.
   I do, also, believe there is danger in such idle threats. How often has someone said, "I wish he were dead" and another person has said, "Oh, you do not," and the person has responded, sincerely, "Oh, yes, I do." Such a statement is a sincere expression, a sincere wish, though it is not likely to be something the person would act on. He or she wouldn't take another person's life just because they wished them dead. But, again, there is in such a statement the seed of what does become -- not usually and not often, but it does happen. There will be, indeed, times that such a statement grows in a person and the person does reach a point of considering ways to end another person's life.
   So, such statements are not healthy. And, discouraging them is the right thing to do. Yes, make the law state that there must be reason to believe the threat could be carried out. Still, whenever the idle threat is investigated -- and no charges are filed -- suggest to the person an alternative feeling, suggest that it is not that they want that person to die, but rather that they just want that person away from them and out of their life.
   And, whenever a threat was intended, or could be taken to have been serious, the person making the threat should be prosecuted.

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

See Something, Say Something; Red Flags; and Terroristic Threats

   Gun legislation? Three proposals should shoot to the top of the list: A law requiring that if you see something, then say something, and a law providing restraining orders against those displaying red flag signs, and a law making it an offense to threaten great harm to another.
  I think of child abuse, and how in some places, it is a crime not to report it. If we have laws requiring you to blow the whistle if you see child abuse, why should be not also have such laws concerning guns and threats and violence? If you see something dangerous, report it. If there is a law requiring it, you are going to feel a whole lot more obligated to turn someone in. If you know someone has obtained a gun illegally (including knowing of a convict who has obtained a gun), then you should be obligated by law to report it. Lives are at stake; You have a moral obligation, regardless whether there is a law, but make it a law.
   Restraining orders? If we can see the need for restraining orders to protect spouses and others, shouldn't we also see that such restraining orders should be used against those who make terroristic threats, or who display very violent and hateful characteristics? If they have guns, their guns should be removed from them. If they don't yet have guns, these people should be placed on a list of those ineligible to buy guns.
   Terroristic threats? There are such laws, but they should be more common -- and more commonly enforced. If it is a crime to step into a move theater and falsely yell, "Fire," should there not be a law against threatening to kill or maim or greatly harm someone? True, many of us make idle threats, but if there were a law against them -- and we knew it would be enforced -- such threats would be fewer. Though we might think there is no harm in such comments, they can and sometimes do lead a person down a path to more aggressive behavior.

(A few lines were added to this blog Feb. 21, 2018.)

Monday, February 19, 2018

The Second Amendment isn't a Hedge against Gun Controls

   I would take the Second Amendment, and use it as the answer to our nation's outcry against mass shootings. Our rocked-with-controversy-right-now Second Amendment need not be a hedge preventing us from doing the things we see need to be done to counter all the violence. Rather, It can be the very key to stopping the carnage and the bloodshed. It can be the very reason we make the changes we see need to be made.
   I have long believed the Founding Fathers inspired, and the Constitution inspired. Now, as I am seeing the Second Amendment in a different light than I ever have in the past -- as I see a whole new meaning in it -- I wonder, the more, about it being inspired.
 Right as our nation reaches a precipice in its outcry against violence, right as our nation's citizens are screaming, "Enough, already!," right as they are demanding to know why we don't have more gun controls, I see the answer in the Second Amendment.
   I see the Second Amendment as if it is saying -- and let this shock you if it will -- Yes, of course, we need some gun controls.  
   Read the Second Amendment. Consider it, and consider it carefully. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
   Those were days, we did not have a standing army. When war came, the people came running and the army was quickly assembled. The soldiers brought their own weapons -- their own guns -- and the haste at which the military was assembled demanded that it be done this way. There was no time to go out and buy guns. If the country was to respond quickly, the soldiers had to already have the guns in hand and be ready to be bring and use them. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed.
   But, it is not the end of the Second Amendment, but rather the beginning of it that I wish to point to. It is in those very first words where we find the secret to dealing with the wave of mass murders sweeping our country.
   "A well regulated militia." What does that mean? Well, "well regulated" can mean well conceived, well thought out, well directed . . . well organized.
   If something is well organized, it provides a way to deal with the problem. Even so, if we are to have a well regulated response to gun violence, we have to do the things that successfully counter gun violence. If we can see that those who make threats of violence should not have guns, we should not let them have guns. 
   We should consider on this: The Founding Fathers said a militia was necessary to the security of a free state. That is a very obvious thing. If you do not have have a militia to protect yourself and your country, you will not be secure. You need a military force to fight off the foreign foes from without and you need a police force to fight off the criminal elements from within. Your military and police provide the security for your state. The Founding Fathers acknowledged as much, simply stating an obvious fact.
   But, do not overlook that they said that militia should be "well regulated." You do not "well regulate" something without regulating it. And, you do not regulate something without having controls. 
   I doubt the Founding Fathers had any idea there would be the killings and mass murders and shootings we are now experiencing. Nor, do I say they were even thinking of gun control when they placed those words in the Second Amendment. But, words have meaning. "Well regulated" did find its way into the Second Amendment.
   I do not know but what that wasn't inspired. 

Sunday, February 18, 2018

A Call for Gun Control Might be Hidden Right in the Second Amendment

While we wring our hands, thinking we need to stop all the senseless mass killings, yet we cannot have gun control because of the Second Amendment, there may be hidden in that very Second Amendment a call for gun control. "A well-regulated militia?" Is that the reason we are to have guns? "Well-regulated, you say?" And, we are talking about the deployment of guns and people with guns when we use the words "well-regulated?" All gun control is, is the regulation of gun use. In order to "well-regulate" something, you have to have controls. Is a call for gun control, then, hidden in the Second Amendment? Perhaps so.
Back in the day, back in the time of the Revolution, a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state.Things have not changed. Even so today it is necessary that we have a military to protect us, and police officers to protect us. This requires that they have guns. Whatever we do with guns and those who use them, and whoever we allow to have them, we should be mindful that the Second Amendment calls for this use to be "well-regulated."

Saturday, February 17, 2018

To Some Degree, We are Products of the Things We Possess

   How much did owning the gun affect Nikolas Cruz? Did he start to think in terms of being "a professional school shooter" after he bought the gun, or was he already thinking that direction before owning it? Do we too easily dismiss guns as inanimate objects, not capable of influencing us? I would suggest that at least to some degree, we are products of the things we possess  -- and that includes guns. They do influence us. Saying, Guns don't kill, people do, sweeps this truth under the rug.
  We learn from history. We can also learn from current events. We can see how Nikolas Cruz might have resolved to use the weapon for ill after he obtained it, not before -- or, at least, he solidified his determination to do harm after obtaining the weapon. We can see how guns can influence some to do evil. Yes, these are people predisposed. Still, it remains, they sometimes do not go that direction until the gun is in their hands. The gun is an enabler.
  Questioning the old adage, Guns don't kill, people do, is a hard thing. Admitting it might be wrong might be painful. Still, if we are not willing to learn from history -- or from a current event -- we are doomed to repeat it.
   Bless those of you who think differently. Your opinions remain fine with me.

Would More be Alive if Cruz had been Forced to Use Another Weapon?

   I've heard Nikolas Cruz did all his killing in a matter of minutes. It is said that guns are not the problem; If he hadn't had a gun, he would have used a knife. Would he have been able to kill 17 people and injure others in a matter of minutes had he used a knife? Would some have been able to fight back if he had used a knife, maybe even disarming him?
   We learn from history. We can learn also from current events. But, problems are not solved if we refuse to ask the hard questions, and if we refuse to see the answers when they stare us in the face. Forgive, for I know everyone has their opinion, and you are fine with me if you do not see it as I do. But, for me, the evidence seems incontrovertible. Guns are more of a problem than knives.

At Times, Would Gun Control Mean Fewer Criminals Owning Them?

   You need to be 18 to buy a gun in Florida, and Nikolas Cruz was 18 when he bought one. Would he have bought one at 17 if he had been allowed? Would he not have gotten a gun at 18 if the age limit were 19? Does when it becomes legal for a person to buy a gun affect when he obtains one, at least sometimes? People say that if you outlaw guns, the outlaws will just get them some other way. But, can't we see that is too much of a generalization? Are there times when if you make it just a little hard for them to get a gun, they don't end up getting one?

Perhaps, We don't need the Russians Meddling in Our Elections

   I thank Karen R., in the online comments to a Deseret News story, for encouraging me to read the indictments against the 13 Russian operatives and Russian entities. I learned it is, indeed, a crime for foreign operatives to engage in political activities in the United States without first registering with the Attorney General. I learned it is, indeed, a crime for foreign nationals to make certain expenditures in attempt to influence our elections. These rules, then, do preclude them from posting such things as, "Hillary 4 Prison."
   Their goal was to disrupt the American political system. I'm still thinking about it, but am (at least at the moment) thinking our laws against allowing Russians to meddle in our elections -- even if it be only with post such as those suggesting Hillary is for sharia law -- are wise laws. Perhaps, we don't need Russian propaganda. Perhaps, we don't need the Russians messing with our elections.

Friday, February 16, 2018

I'm Hesitant about Charges against 13 Russian Operatives

 Though I have supported the Mueller investigation, I am a little hesitant about supporting the charges -- at least if I am understanding them correctly. I am grateful to the FBI if it reveals the Russians influenced the election through social media. Tell us about it, yes, but, is that does not necessarily mean filing criminal charges. Are the 13 Russians guilty of criminal charges? I am hesitant to support the charges if they are for using social media posts to influence people's opinions. Did the agents steal U.S. identities unlawfully? Then, charge them with that. Did they libel Hillary or anyone else? Then charge them with that. But, if they are merely being arrested for using their media influence to affect the election? Free speech should not be muzzled, even if it is the free speech of the Russians. I suppose we must wait before we clearly see what the Russians are being charged with, but, at this point, I have my reservations. 

Thursday, February 15, 2018

Four Thoughts on the Florida Mass Shooting

Take I
   A meme comes across my Facebook newsfeed: "It's not our job to fix people. It's our job to love them even while they are broken."
   My mind turns to the Florida shooting, to Nikolas Cruz. Haven't I heard something about him being a "broken" individual? What would have happened, had love been extended to him? I read how he was avoided. What if love had been extended to him? Could he have been softened? Would it have made a difference?

Take II 
   "I'm going to be a professional shooter," Nikolas Cruz posted on YouTube. The post was forwarded to the FBI. Should not such a comment warrant arrest, as a terroristic threat? I think definitely so.

Take III
   Has it reached a point where all school grounds should have metal detectors at their entries? Should we do the same at other places where there are large public gatherings?

Take IV
   And, another meme comes across my Facebook newsfeed:
   "One way to stop school shootings
   "Place 3 armed veterans in every school There are thousands of unemployed trained veterans & retired police officers who would love the job of protecting our children."
   

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

The Immigrant and the Bean Counters


   There was a knocking at the border wall. At first, it was light tap, and they paid it no mind. Then, the knocking became louder and a voice cried out, "Anybody there? Could you let me in?"
   One of the caretakers poked his head around the wall. "Yes, can I help you?"
   "Just wondering if I can come in," replied the person who had been knocking.
   "And, you are? Do you mind telling me who you are?"
   "I'm the Immigrant," came the reply. "I'd just like to come in, if you don't mind."
   "I see," the worker said. He looked the Immigrant up and down. "Well, if you wait here just a moment, I'll go see what we can do. Just wait right here."
   He disappeared around the wall, and into a large building called the Caretakers' Building. Down the hall he walked, past office after office, all filled with bean counters counting beans. At last, he came to the largest room of all, called the Caretakers' Room. In it, all the lead bean counters were gathered.
   "My fellow accountants," the one caretaker said, "There is a gentleman outside, knocking, wanting to come in. Shall we let him?"
   The bean counters looked at each other, as if in surprise. "We will have to count," one exclaimed, and they each scurried to a table, where piled-high beans awaited them. They counted frantically through the night, and in the early morning hours emerged with the final count.
   "One-hundred-fifteen billion dollars," announced the lead bean-counter. "That is how much it costs each year for illegal immigrants. Can I repeat that? One-hundred-fifteen billion dollars!"
   "Yes," cried another, "And, I counted how much they contribute to the economy, and only came up with $11 billion."
   "Clearly, then, they cannot come," said a third. "Obviously, they cannot come. It would be absurd."
   Suddenly, a large man in a cloak entered the room -- a giant of a man whose head all but brushed the ceiling. He walked down the aisles of the room, past table after table, eyeing the piles of beans. "So, then," he finally said, "is this what it is all about?"
   He reached into his cloak and brought out a down-sized replica of a statue that stands in New York Harbor. He squinted a bit to read the words inscribed at the base of the statue. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," he read. "It shouldn't surprise you that the poor and huddled masses aren't going to be much of a money-maker for you." He set the statue on one of the tables, next to a pile of beans. "Well, then, which stands taller in your eyes, the pile of beans, or the statue?"
   As it happened, the pile of beans and the statue were about the same in height.
  "Well, which will it be?" the man in the cloak asked. He looked kindly, but firmly into their faces. "You know, I'm of a mind to clear this whole room out and replace you. Taking care of humanity is not a matter for bean counters."
   He looked up and down the aisles, into their faces. "The choice is yours, whether you let these people in. But, if we had humanitarians making the decision, I believe they would make a different decision. You reduce the Immigrant to a commodity. You reduce the question of whether someone should be allowed in this country to a matter of economics."
   He paused, then turned and walked out of the room. As he exited, you could hear him whisper. "Not so, the humanitarian."
  As he walked the hall -- now out of reach of their ears, but still whispering to himself -- he said, "Nor would Lady Liberty deprive them. Liberty should not be just for those who you can make a profit off of. If Lady Liberty is right, it is for the wretched refuse, the homeless, the tempest-tossed."
  He walked, quietly for a moment or two, then said, "Give these to me."

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

The Immigrant's Phone Call didn't go well

   The Immigrant called ahead, this time, thinking to ask America if he could come. Last time, he had just walked in, and that hadn't worked out very well. So, this time he thought maybe he'd try to get permission first.
  "President Trump? Is this President Donald J. Trump? I've been meaning to reach you, to ask you for permission to come to America. Do you think that would be alright?"
   There was silence on the other end, and if the Immigrant had been able to see, he would have seen President Trump pulling the phone away from his ear and looking at it, as if to say, "What? What is this crazy call?"
   "Yes, Mr. Trump, are you there?" the Immigrant asked.
   The President tapped his fingers on his desk, then spoke. "I take it you are from Mexico. Tell me, are you a rapist?"
   "No," came the reply.
   "Have you ever murdered anyone?"
   "No, Mr. President."
   "The reason I'm asking, is because Mexico doesn't send its finest, you know. I know who you are."
   "No, Mr. President. I am not that immigrant."
    "You're from outside this country aren't you?"
   "Well, yes,"
   "Do you remember the illegal immigrant who shot things up in San Francisco?'
   "Well, yes."
    "And, the one in New York?"
   "Yes, I remember him."
    "You're a terrorist, aren't you!"
     "No, no. Please. You've got the wrong person. Yes, I'm an immigrant, but I'm not that immigrant. You're sure getting me confused with someone else."
    "No!" Trump said loudly. "Once an invader, always an invader. Now, you've certainly got some kind of gall, to call the President of the United States, and ask if you can invade his country."
     "No, I don't want to invade. I'm just calling to ask if you think it might be alright if I came on in. For the moment, it would just be me. Oh, I don't know, the wife and kids might come later. And, maybe a cousin or two and maybe our grandmother. But, for now, it would just be me. You think that would be okay?"
   "I knew it! Chain migration!" Trump yelled, shaking in rage, and dropping the phone. Picking it up again, he regained a little bit of his composure, and said, "I told you I know who are. I know you and the likes of you.  And, I know what you're up to. You're going to infect our whole nation! You come first, then you get others in behind you, and pretty soon, the whole nation is infested. It's an infestation! It's an invasion!"
   The Immigrant sighed. He didn't know what to say.
   Trump, tapped his fingers on his desk, waiting for a reply.
   "Well, I tell you what you can do," the Immigrant finally said. "After I and my wife and kids get there, you can put up that wall you've been talking about, so there won't be any invasion. No infestation, there, huh? No invasion? I don't want you to do that, but I'll bet you probably will."
   President Trump dropped the phone again, his blood pressure rising yet higher. "You'll do no such thing! You won't come! You won't bring your family! America first, America first, America first! Make America great again! I'll build my wall, and none of you will come!"
   He hung up the phone.
   On the other end, the Immigrant heard the line go dead. Pulling the phone away from his ear, he stared at it as if to say, "Whoa! What was that?"

(Index: Story)

Monday, February 12, 2018

7 Percent of U.S. Children Live with at Least One Undocumented Parent

An estimate 7 percent of all U.S. children live with at least one parent who is here illegally, although 79 percent of them have obtained citizenship themselves. So, in talking about DACA, we are talking about changing the policy for a very significant portion of our childhood population. After the 1.8 million are given citizenship, as Trump is proposing, what becomes of these children in the future when they arrive here with undocumented immigrants? Will they from hereon be deported? I have no problem with them staying, and see Trump's policy as being detrimental to families. Many of these children, while they have one parent who is undocumented, have a second parent here legally. With Trump's policies, you divide the family, sending the children back to an environment they didn't grow up in, and, in some cases, to an environment that puts them at risk. Why? What is the need with deporting these children? 

Sunday, February 11, 2018

Perhaps a Media Commission on Immigration would Work

  If we are to solve our immigration crisis, we must first know the facts -- the real facts. If we are to know which direction to go and what to do, the first step is to determine where we are and what is wrong.
  That can't be done with false information. Studies are needed, but those studies need to be fair and even-handed.
  Who should do them? I favor journalists. We often call on government studies, and we often rely on studies from private groups that end up flavoring the results to match their preconceived objectives.
   Journalists are not perfect. But, pick the most unbiased yet industrious you can. What I'm calling for is definitely unusual, for it would be a team of investigators from, say, 30 respected news organizations. Have we ever had a media commission of this nature?
   They would contract the places and groups where immigrants (both those here legally and those who are not) and survey them. What were the conditions that led to them coming? How many end up on welfare? How many were at risk in their home countries? How many are committing crimes?(Whenever names were obtained, they would check those names against police records?)
   Such investigative journalism is common, of course. But, compiling a large number of news agencies into a single investigation is not.

Saturday, February 10, 2018

If We all Wore Masks, Would Spreading the Flu Come to an End?

   If we really wanted to stop the spread of the flu, I wonder if we all wore the little face filters (what is the word for them? Surgical masks?) if that would do the trick.
   Now, I mean everyone wear them. So much of the spread of the flu is airborne. If our coughs didn't get past the surgical masks, the germs wouldn't be airborne. And, if we were wearing the masks, we wouldn't be taking in the germs in the air, anyway.
   So, if all American changed its lifestyle -- if everyone wore masks throughout the flu season, would we conquer the flu? Would we bring an end to the spread of the common flu?

Friday, February 9, 2018

Trumpty Dumpty had a Great Fall

  Trumpty Dumpty built a great wall
Trumpty Dumpty had a great fall
  All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Trumpty together again

  The wall that he built, he sat on like a throne
He told all the people to stay on land of their own
  But so many there were, they knocked the wall down
Down came the wall and the man with the crown

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

If We are to be Just, We Should Create the State of Columbia

   About as quick as we find something wrong in America -- as quick as we find an injustice -- we should change it. So, what are we waiting for in the District of Columbia?
   Do you know what the slogan on the D.C. license plate is? "Taxation Without Representation." Comical? Yes. But, it is also a sobering statement, a cry from the residents to please give them representation in the halls of Congress.
  We should grant them statehood.
   The Founding Fathers never intended for these people to lack representation. Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress authority to exercise exclusive legislation over a small area that might be purchased by the federal government to serve as a seat of government. Congress was given authority to legislate "for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."
   I would suggest the clause only intended to give Congress legislative authority over such things as the erection of needful buildings and facilities. By contrast, Congress has claimed supreme authority over the federal district, and can overturn anything the city council does.
  The founders didn't foresee Washington, D.C. blossoming into a city of 682,000, nor did they intend to deprive them of the representative form of government the rest of the nation was given.They were thinking the district would house needful buildings and facilities, but they had no thought that a large body of people would end up living there.
   Wrong is wrong. These people are being unjustly governed, unjustly treated. We should have changed this long ago, but since we haven't, we should do so now, without further delay.
   So, create the State of Columbia. Now, don't keep it as small as it now is. That would make if by far smaller than the existing smallest state, Rhode Island, yet it would be awarded two senators. Rather, I would expand it so the State of Columbia includes the metropolitan area, giving it a population of more than 6 million. Or,  include the Baltimore area in the new state, upping the population to about a million, perhaps making it one of the 10 largest states in the union.


Section 8

1: The Congress shall have Power To  unrepresented in the halls of Congress.


i Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Each Attempt could be an Obstruction of Justice Charge

   One wonders at all the efforts of Trump to impede the special counsel investigation, all the suggestions that he might fire people. These are ongoing. They haven't stopped. Could not each and all of these lead to obstruction of justice charges? We wonder about why the investigation is taking so long, and Congressman Chris Stewart says he hopes it concludes soon. Well, for one thing, it becomes problematic to end an investigation while the crime is still being committed.
   Are we seeing regular and on-going offenses being committed by Trump and yet we are so jaded we don't even recognize them as they play out right in front of our eyes? Oh, it does't go unnoticed on us that Trump toys with the idea of firing people, but do we consider that each of these attempts could be an obstruction of justice charge?

Teams with most Patriotic Names made it to Super Bowl

  How interesting it is, that in the season of the flag controversy, the two teams with the most patriotic names made it to the Super Bowl, the Eagles and the Patriots.
  The Patriots hail from the Boston area, site of so many scenes from the Revolutionary War -- the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, the Battle of Bunker Hill and the Siege of Boston. The Eagles hail from Philadelphia, where the Declaration of Independence was signed as the city served as a meeting place for the founding fathers and as one of the capitals at the time of the Revolution. The battle of Germantown and the Siege of Fort Mifflin took place in that area.

Monday, February 5, 2018

More Die Trying to Cross Mexican Border than died at Berlin Wall

   Three hundred people a year die trying to cross the Mexican border, notes Sven Haynes, who is on the immigration sanctuary steering committee at the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City.
   "That's more people than died trying to cross the Berlin Wall," says Haynes, who himself is an immigrant from Germany, and who has therefore had cause to reflect on the numbers from the two locations.
   I word search, and find he is right. Wikipedia says 294 people died trying to cross from Mexico in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2017. And, how many people died trying to escape East Germany along the Berlin Wall? Well, the wall was in effect from 1961 to 1989 and during all those years, only an estimated 239 died.

Sunday, February 4, 2018

Has Trump used the Power of His Office to Shift the Investigation?

   One wonders if obstruction of justice is a concern, then should any pressuring of the House committee by Trump be investigated? I would be somewhat certain the House investigation, not being a criminal investigation, does not warrant charges of obstruction of justice.
   Still, one wonders if it is appropriate for Trump to use his weight as president to persuade the Committee to come to one conclusion or another, or to go one direction or another with what they are investigating. If the investigation from the inception was about Russian influence and possible collusion by him or his workers, and he sought to turn it from investigating that to investigating matters involving Hillary, isn't that obstructing the process? Isn't that interjecting the power of your high office to shift an investigation from you to somebody else? Has President Trump done this, or has he been hands-off, not asking them to take the investigation one direction or another? If this is not a criminal investigation, no obstruction of justice charges can result, but the wrongness of such pressuring remains the same. You are seeking to obstruct and divert the process from reaching a certain conclusion.

Saturday, February 3, 2018

If Speech is Free, Others should not Dictate how it is Expressed

  Most likely, all the players will stand for the National Anthem during the Super Bowl. Some of the Philadelphia Eagle players raised their fists during the anthem during the season, but stopped with the playoffs. Some New England Patriot players participated in the protests early in the season, but have since stopped.
   Any final thoughts on the flag controversy? I have some.
   I guess I feel people should not only have the freedom to speak and the freedom to protest, but the freedom to choose when and how they do it. I feel we are wrong to judge them by suggesting they are not patriotic. To me, they clearly love this country, clearly love the flag, and clearly appreciate the soldiers who died in war. To judge them otherwise is calumny. To cast aspersions on other people is wrong. To falsely accuse another person is wrong.
   When doing something hurts people, those are wrongful actions. Sometimes, though, no hurt results and none was intended, so why make a big deal of it? Why take offense when no offense was intended?
   I would that we were not so judgmental of these protesters. I would that we allowed them to have their opinions, and allowed them to express their opinions in the manner of their choice. If speech is free, another person should not be dictating how you express it. We are not allowing them to have their opinion and not allowing them to express their opinion in their own chosen way when we demand they stand for the anthem.
  We are curtailing free speech. We are being judgmental. And, we are taking offense when no offense is intended. Yes, we are manufacturing a crime when no crime is being committed.
  We might suggest it is only our opinion that they should stand, and we should be allowed to have our opinion. True. But, when we say they should be required to stand, or when we require them to stand at threat of boycotting the NFL, we are taking away their right to have an opinion. We are practicing coercion.
  And, when we have a president who calls on team owners to fire players who express their freedom in a manner he does not approve of, we have a president who is literally taking away a little freedom of speech from a little segment of our population. 

Friday, February 2, 2018

That's it?


I'm with James Comey, who reads the Memo the Republicans released today and responds, "That's it?"

The memo revealed that Christopher Steele was paid by Hillary's campaign during much of his project? Didn't we already know that? Is that all you've got, Devin Nunes? That's it? Hey, if you are a private investigator, you need a client to pay the bill. So, Steele got Hillary's campaign to pay. So what.

I wonder if anyone is calling for Nunes to to step down from chairing and being a member of the House committee. If he was on the Trump transition team, doesn't he have quite a built-in bias in favor of Trump? In the Memo, he worries about those having biases against Trump being actors in the FBI probe, yet Nunes is not just an actor in the House probe, he is the committee chairman. Ironic, to be more guilty of the crime than those you are accusing.

Much of the committee's effort has been spent trying to discredit the FBI investigation instead of looking into possible Trump collusion. One wonders if the House committee has placed any serious effort into the Russian investigation, or if they have turned the investigation on its heels and are more interested in investigating the investigation and more interested in investigating Hillary instead of Trump. 

Freedom, Hope and Truth Deserve More than a 'Nope'


To Americans, I say:
Would you let the freeman speak
When and where he will?
Then, why make the NFL player
Someone whose voice you'd like to kill?

To Americans, I cry:
Care you not for those at risk?
Would you let them die?
You speak of helping the tempest-tost
But then you make that a lie

To Americans, I call:
Have you lost your moral compass
And, a patriot you be no more?
For you spit on your investigation
When it searches Russia's door

To Americans, I sing:
This is a land of freedom
This is a land of hope
This is a land that searches for truth
Regardless whether you're saying, "Nope."

Thursday, February 1, 2018

What can be done for the Mother Fleeing from Immigration Officials?

    What can be done for Vicky Chavez, the mother of two holed up in the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City as she seeks protection from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, who seek to deport her?
   It is said she will attempt to reopen her case. Is that even possible? I believe the appeals process has been completed. Or, should this be a case that could be appealed outside the immigration courts, going all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary? Do immigration cases even have that option?
   Could she be pardoned? We must doubt President Trump would do that.
   Could a law be passed granting residency to those fleeing the prospect of being murdered in their home countries? That would open a wide door, allowing in more immigrants than many believe we can handle. We must doubt Congress will pass such a law.
   Could she be sent to another country? Since it is in her homeland of Honduras that she reportedly could be killed, if she returns, why not send her to Iceland or France or Australia? Perhaps the immigration laws of many countries are such that she could not go there, but it would seem some country might offer her asylum.
    Or, is remaining at the First Unitarian Church the best option for her and her two young children?