Saturday, March 31, 2018

Punishment would not be Lost

   If we did move away from prisons, and placed many first-time offenders in reform-based correctional housing, instead, would there be enough punishment involved to deter people from committing the crimes?
   Just being placed in a home where there are restrictions on moving about is punishment. Depending on the crime, some of those sent to the non-lockup housing would still be restricted from leaving the facility.  And, if they did run away, they would be moved to a lock-up facility.
   Others would not be restricted. If the crime were not considered serious enough, they would be free to come and go. The primary purpose would be place them in a site where they could be guided, taught and influenced to become better people.
   The idea would be to rehabilitate them -- as would be the idea for anyone sent to prison, whether they were in lockup, in restricted non-lock up, or in open-door housing.
   Punishment exists even in open-door housing, even without lockup. The very fact of being placed in the correctional housing is perceived by the offender as punishment. The simple fact they are  not only required to be there, but to go through a rehabilitation program is punishment. Being required to spend the time away from doing the things they want to be doing is punishment.
   Punishment would not be lost,

We have Allowed More Money to be Spread on the Table

  One of the principles of human nature is that if you leave money on the table, someone will sweep it away.
   I suppose you could say it is a principle of economics, as well.
   And, it is a principle we should consider as we lament the staggering cost of health care these days. I understand 17 percent of our GNP goes to the health-care industry, easily the highest rate in the world.
   I would suggest, how much the industry takes from us is largely dictated by how much we place on the table for them to take. It is a simply a principle of economics that a person will make as large of a profit as he can. He will take as much money from you as you let him get away with.
   So, if we would wonder how to lower our health-care costs, we should consider it is as simple as not placing so much of our money on the table for the health-care industry to take. If we leave it open for them to get at our money, they will.
   What are the three things driving up the price of health care -- the three ways the industry has of getting more money out of us than it was able to get out of us a couple hundred years ago?
    Credit, insurance and, liens.
   If the medical provider is not limited by how much money you have at time of service, but can add to its take by getting you to cough up money you will make in the future, it is going to do so. The increase of lending in American has led to an increase in medical prices.
   Secondly, if the medical provider is not limited by how much you, as an individual, have in your own pockets, but can collect from someone with larger pockets, instead, he will do so. And, obviously, an insurance company has much more money in its account than what any one person has.
   Thirdly, if the medical provider can go after your property, it can increase the pool of money it has available to go after. I doubt that 200 years ago that doctors came after people's property the way the industry does today.
   If we really want to address the high cost of medicine, then we must address these three things. We must address how the medical industry gets at more of our money as a result of credit, insurance, and liens.
    We have allowed more money to be spread on the table, and the medical industry is sweeping it up.

Friday, March 30, 2018

We are limited
not by our weakest moments, 
but by whether 
we let them define us.

  I noticed a basketball player miss a crucial shot in the closing seconds of his team's loss. The next game, he did not have a tremendous game, and I wondered if he let the missed shot affect how he played. Basketball is a game of belief; If you believe you can achieve, you will be more likely to do so. 
  Even so it is with life. We all have moments of failure. We will all do things we are ashamed of. Does this mean we should retreat from life and no longer try to achieve things, letting the weak moments define us? 
   We need not. 
   Just as the basketball player can decide to put the missed shot behind him, so can we decide to put our weak moments behind us, and go on to yet achieve great things.

Thursday, March 29, 2018

Replace Prisons with Correctional Housing

   If we were to reform our judicial system, how about replacing prisons with correctional housing? Seems I may have caught wind of some place in Scandinavia doing this -- sending offenders to correctional housing instead of prison.
   Not everyone would go to the correctional housing. Those posing as threats to society, and who would flee if not locked up, would still be sent to lock-up. But, but it makes sense to send much of the rest (or at least some) to correctional housing. If these are offenders who would not flee -- and if no great harm would be done if they did flee -- why lock them up?
   Remember, America is known for having one of the highest -- if not the highest -- incarceration rates in the world. This is America, land of the free, we are talking about.
   So, let's bring it down. Let's lower the incarceration rate.
   Besides saving money, it would help in reforming the offenders. Sticking them in with hardened criminals, sometimes only leads them to become hardened, themselves. If you want to reform them, why not simply house them in facilities where they are taught and molded, guided and changed?
   Speak softly, and don't even carry a big stick, so to speak. Keep them in a loving and caring facility without the harshness of prison walls.

Note: Blog tweaked 3/30/18
 
 

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Under this, the Second Amendment Only Gives Guns to the Military

   I don't know that there is hardly anyone who believes some people should not be allowed guns. Why do I say this? Well, I open today's newspaper and read a statement from the NRA, saying, "We think that the focus has to remain on removing weapons from dangerous individuals . . ."
   Even the NRA sees that there should be exceptions.
   Here's the trick: If you suggest the Constitution allows for taking guns away from one group, then shouldn't you allow it to take guns away from a broader group? Where do you draw the line? Do you say the right to keep and bear arms just doesn't apply to the mentally unstable? Frankly, I don't see that exception specified when I read the Second Amendment. So, can we not just as well say a larger group will not be allowed guns as long as we let those who the Second Amendment intended to have them, have them?
   Now, you are on dangerous ground. Just who did the Second Amendment intend to have guns? It suggests that since it is necessary for us to have a military in order for us be secure the from being taken over by other nations, then we must allow those people who would fight for us to keep and bear arms.
   I would suggest that if you are conceding the Constitution allows us to take guns away from some people, as long as you do not take them from those it intended to have them, then you have lost the argument.
  When you have conceded as much, then it would seem you must concede the only people the Constitution calls for having arms are the ones who would be in the military.

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

When You Seek to do Damage, You are Using the Element of Force

   There are two kinds of power in society: The power of force and the power of persuasion, the power of might and the power of right.
    And then there is something in the middle we call intimidation So, I guess there are really three kinds of power society uses.
   Intimidation is where you threaten -- yes -- but it is more. Intimidation is where you mock, belittle and taunt. It is where you name-call. It is where try to discredit another person, where you attack another person, and where you find fault with another person.
   It is where you do damage in hopes of gaining advantage.
   When you use the element of damage, you are using the element of force. Intimidation can be said to be a form of persuasion, but it is really an offshoot of it, rather than a pure form of it. Pure persuasion is done with logic and reasoning and concern. It is achieved by showing love and providing positive reinforcement. Those are inviting actions, not forceful ones. Intimidation, on the other hand, is the emotional extension of force. It is where you grab and use emotional weapons, and use them to do damage, just as physical weapons do damage.
 

Monday, March 26, 2018

If this is America's System, America should be Ashamed of it

   Calling the hospital today to make a payment for my emergency room visit, I was shocked to be told the minimum payment that would be accepted was well over $200. The collector did end up dropping today's fee to $101, but I was left not knowing if that was an acceptable amount, as she said it still could go to collections.
   Now, I've always been told that as long as you are paying some, and doing it every month, they won't go after you, and won't send it to collections.
   What was the total bill for my one-day hospital stay? Close to $20,000, if not that. I believe one of the bills hasn't arrived yet. Now, they adjusted that to maybe about $16,000. And, insurance payed a lot, leaving me about $3,000 or just a little less than that. There was no ambulance ride; That's all just for the one day in the hospital. I'm left thinking I was a total fool to accept being admitted to the hospital after the emergency room visit.
   I went to the hospital because I was experiencing signs of a stroke: a sagging face and slurred speech. Although it ended up being just a TIA (a minor stroke), going to emergency seemed the only thing to do.
   Strokes are life-threatening.
   And, the point is, next time I'm in a life-threatening situation, I might be less inclined to go to emergency.
   And, the point is, if I feel that way, there are others.
   And, the point is, if we don't go to emergency, some of us will die.
   And, the point is, some, surely, already have died -- died because they could not afford to go to the hospital.
   There are a lot of folks who defend the American medical system, who say no one is deprived the life-saving care they need.
   I beg to differ.
   After I got off the phone with the hospital bill collector, I thought of the corporate executives living high up the side of the hill, rich and comfortable. I wondered if they realized people are going to their death beds to allow them to live in such comfort. They charge way beyond value of service, and collect it, and buy their houses on the hill with that inflated amount of money. And the people who cannot afford their services die.
    This is not a very honorable medical system. If it is America's system, America should be ashamed of it.

Sunday, March 25, 2018

The Convening of the Citizens Commission on American Gun Violence

   "Welcome, my friends, to the Citizens Commission on American Gun Violence. You have been assembled with the simple task of deciding what to do about gun violence in America. As you know, Congress has failed to find solutions. Our president has failed to find solutions. So, the problem now falls in your lap."
  The moderator looked around to see if he had every member's attention. He did, so he continued.
  "As you know, nobody of any authority has called you to this commission. I and some others just decided we would form a citizens commission to get to the bottom of this, to find out if guns should be outlawed, passed out to everyone -- or just what should be done. All these marches and protests nationwide following the school shooting down in Florida have made one thing clear: Something must -- must -- be done. Now, before you can do something, you have to decide what you are going to do -- right? So, you, as the citizens commission will decide just what it is that should be done -- if anything. Then, we will take your decisions -- your solutions -- and we will take them to the streets and to the halls of Congress and demand that these changes be passed into law."
   In addition to the commission members, there was a large audience in attendance, and everyone broke into a cheer.
   The moderator held out his hands, palms down, to quiet them.
   "Nobody authorized this commission and you have no authority," the moderator yelled over the cheers of the crowd. "Your only authority is the logic and good reasoning you use to make your decision. Your only authority is the urgency that something needs to be done. Your only authority is the power of what is right. For authority, we will use the power of free speech. We will take your decision to the streets, and to Washington, and we will demand that these things be done."
   Again, the crowd broke into cheering. Again, the moderator held out his hands, then spoke over the cheering. "Now, hold on. Here is the trick: You must be open to considering this as if for the first time. Consider the question of guns brand new. Be fair and open-minded. You must be willing to consider both sides, all sides, and any new side that might come up. What I mean, is that if we are going to leave here with the right on our side, and demand that the right things be done, then you are going to have to come up with the right decision -- or as close to the right decision as all open-minded and fair-minded reasoning will allow you to."
   "We'll do that!" someone shouted from the back of the audience, as if speaking for the commission.
   "You are like a jury -- no -- you are a jury. You will remain here until you reach a decision. You will sleep in the hotel across the street and reconvene each day until a verdict is reached. You will start by hearing all the evidence, all the concerns, all the arguments for and against. You will watch the videos discussing gun laws in Japan versus gun laws in the U.S. and gun laws in Australia versus the U.S. You will watch the counter videos. You will watch videos about how guns are necessary for the preservation of a free society, and of how the Second Amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms. Hey, we are going to even show you a few quick clips from "Red Dawn." You will search YouTube for more videos and search the Internet for more information."
    The moderator paused, but only briefly.
   "I'd like you to keep all this study to about a day. You really should be able to hear all the arguments in 12 hours of hearing. So, if you feel you have studied enough after today, we will re-adjourn tomorrow to start establishing what should be done. Again, I would expect quick action. I'm hoping you will quickly spell out what needs to be done, and arrive at all your answers during that second day. But if you do need more time, that's up to you."
   He paused to pick up a piece of paper that had fallen to the ground, then continued.
   "Decide what can be done, what should be done, and what is legal under the Second Amendment. Decide how we can strengthen the Second Amendment -- if that is your decision.
   "You are the people, and in America, we trust the people to do the thinking. None of you were invited to sit on this commission because you are police officers, or social counselors, or lawyers. In America, the common people can think as well as those with pedigrees and credentials and degrees. You are a citizens committee in every sense of the word."
   Smiling, he concluded, "So get at it."

Saturday, March 24, 2018

Is the Body's Recovery Kind of Like Species Adaptation?

  If we believe a species evolves in order to adapt to its environment, then aren't we saying that if it needs fins, it grows them? Obviously, that is part of what we are saying.
  So, if a person tears the cartilage in his knee, that means he is without cartilage. So, does the DNA immediately send a message asking to cope with the problem -- to adapt to it? Now, yes, the species already has cartilage in the knee, so that means the next person born will have it.
   But, I still wonder if a message is created, saying, "Deal with this problem." And, I wonder if the DNA goes to work right then on solving the problem.
  The pain might even be a manifestation of that DNA message, and it might be the way the problem is solved. The pain tells the body to stop using the knee, so the person stops using the knee, and the problem is solved. The body adapted to the problem.
   But, what if the person keeps using the knee? Obviously, it would seem the cartilage could continue to be torn, and become worse. But, is it possible that the pain continues to send a message to the DNA, saying, "Find a way to deal with this"?
  Now, in some cases when the body is hurt, and the DNA sends messages to deal with it, the answer might be to die. Die and the pain goes away. You adapted to the pain.
  But, other times?
  In college, days after running a marathon and while my body had not recovered -- as a joke -- I tried out for the football team. The coach instructed me to run down the field, then cut sharply in to receive the pass. As I did, my knee snapped. The doctor told me the cartilage was torn. Now, cartilage is not suppose to repair itself. You tear it, that's it. Now, I am not saying that the cartilage ever repaired itself. And, maybe the doctor missed on his diagnosis. Perhaps the cartilage didn't tear, but was just strained, for I do not know that I even had an X-ray to know for sure there was a tear.
  I will only say that today, it seems to have recovered. For years, it hurt, but eventually the hurt went away. Here's the point: The body recovered. Whether it was just a strain or a tear, the body recovered.
  Often, we suffer injuries and the body recovers. Thinking about how species evolve and adapt, I wonder if the same DNA process that brings about that change -- that causes a species to sprout fins -- is at play in recovery of the body.

Friday, March 23, 2018

Couldn't We at Least Balance the Budget While in Shutdown Mode?

   We need to redesign our government shutdowns. So, here we are, having averted another one. But, I cannot help but wonder why we cannot save some money during these shutdowns.
   Here's what I mean: We have a $21 trillion debt. We can see we should be spending less. And, our government shutdowns only result in a portion of the government being shut down.
   So, if most things don't shut down, why can't we do this in a way that shuts down just that portion of the government we would shut down if we were balancing our budget?
   I guess here's the trick to that: Government check-writing is put on hold during a shutdown. Government workers don't receive their checks. But, it doesn't mean the bills aren't going to be paid. It doesn't mean government workers won't get retroactive pay when they return to work. The spending continues, it just continues with an IOU.
  What does come to a halt is some of the work. Some workers are off while others still report to work even though they won't be reimbursed for what they do until later.
   So, when we are told that during a shutdown only, say, 17 percent of the government is actually shutdown, what does that mean? Does it mean only 17 percent are told they don't need to report to work?
   I have heard it suggested that when they designed the shutdown process -- when they decided what would and would not be shut down -- they designed it so it would hurt. That way, we all scream and cry and plead with our leaders not to inflict the shutdown upon us.
   I do not know whether that is true. I rather think that everything hurts. If you shut down the parks, that hurts. If you take someones welfare check, that hurts. If you deprive a government worker from an on-time paycheck, that hurts.
  Everything hurts. Any cut in the budget hurts. Anything not paid on time hurts. Anything shut down even though it will be funded later hurts.
   Maybe we should sit back and realize what all this means: Maybe it simply underscores that we cannot and should not attempt to balance the budget, for to do so means cutting things we cannot live without. Balancing the budget means hurting too many people. We need to look no further than these shutdowns to see that balancing the budget is a bad idea.
   Now, do not think I actually mean that. I do beg to differ with that view. My thought is, we should reduce the size of our government -- even though it is going to hurt.
   And, so, why not make these shutdowns a time when we do de-fund some of the government? If we can see we actually ought to be keeping to a budget all the time, why not at least require that we balance it when we are supposedly in shutdown mode?
  We should review our rules governing shutdowns. We should prioritize our spending to cut those things needing to be cut if the budget is ever to be balanced. Just do it for the week or so during the shutdown. That's all. Can't we at least practice a balanced budget for that long?

Thursday, March 22, 2018

A Vacation Where You Live Out Your Dreams

   Here's inventing RealityVacationVille, where you go to spend your vacation being Darth Vader, or Hoss Cartwright, or Abraham Lincoln.
   Well, not everyone gets to be Darth, or Hoss, or Abraham. Most play support roles in these make-believe worlds.
   Here's how it works: RealityVacationVille, Inc., schedules months in advance. One week it hosts a Star Wars village, the next a David Bowie village, and so forth -- all depending on what vacationers request. Sometimes, the week's offering might not tout a celebrity or movie, but rather just feature living in a certain setting -- say, the American West frontier with everyone riding horses, or medieval Europe with jousting and such. What event is picked each week depends on what the tourists request and RealityVacationVille, Inc., just pulls it all together and allows people to live out their dreams. Some might want to live in a weightless outer space world and others might want prehistoric times recreated. The cost of the vacation depends on how much it costs RealityVacationVille to create the setting. Sometimes, one person might pay a tidy some to be king of the world for a week, while others pay much less for the supporting roles.
 

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

Instead of Asking for Their Vote, I will ask for Their Ideas

   Let the voters be my lobbyists.
   Too often, our legislation is created by lobbyists. The lobbyist needs something, so he approaches the legislator, and the legislator agrees to legislate. Often, the legislator notes the lobbyist is his constituent. Well, I will turn things around. Instead of the lobbyists being my constituents, my constituents will be my lobbyists. It is to them I will turn to for legislative ideas.
   One of the planks of my party's platform is campaign finance limits, so I will set a limit on how much money I will accept from any one person or entity, (supposing I get any campaign contributions, for it may be I will not solicit them).
  But, what if someone wanting legislation does come calling, wanting to donate? I toy with the idea that from that point on, I will not have a discussion with them about any legislation they may want unless that discussion is one the public can listen in on. I'm not sure how I can go about achieving this, but maybe Facebook live.
   We hear how Utah has fallen in voter turnout, and involvement. I hear the state was once number one in some such measurement. I don't know if that is true, but I know we have fallen drastically. Maybe it would help if the voters were involved more in the process. Ask the voters for ideas. Ask them how they would change the world, if it were their world to change. Ask them how they would solve immigration and guns and shootings and whatever. Ask them how they would make prisons better, and solve homelessness.
  And, take their ideas to Capitol Hill.
   I plan to gather their ideas by going door to door.  I don't know whether I could  hit all the doors in this district even if started to tomorrow and didn't miss a day from here till November. I don't know if I could hit all the doors even if I just knocked on just the ones with registered voters, but I think to hit them all, whether they are registered to vote, or not. Even the ones who are not voters are my constituents, and they may have suggestions on public issues.
  And, instead of asking for their vote, I will ask for their ideas.
  Government of the people, by the people, for the people. I will try to be the legislator who embodies this principle.
  Politicians often ask their constituents to prioritize the issues: Education, pollution, immigration, etc. The politician doesn't even need to reveal his own position when he does such a survey, but it makes him appear to be asking for public input. I think I can do better. Instead of just asking what issues are important, I can ask what the solutions are to those problems.
  Who knows, maybe by the time my campaign is over, I will have, "The 20 Best Solutions Submitted by My 'Lobbyists.'" And, I will take these legislative proposals up to Capitol Hill.

You cannot Draw Fast Enough to Stop a Shooter Who has Fired

I changed my mind on what I said last night. at least in part. You cannot draw fast enough to catch a bullet that has already flown. So, if I say your policing effort needs to equal the threat, what can we do to make our police effort equal to the threat that there might be a school shooting? If you have a police officer stationed at the school, will that stop the shooter? Well, normally, not even if the officer is right on the school grounds, he still won't be able to reach the scene before the shooter has fired and killed someone. As I said, you cannot draw fast enough to stop a gun that already fired. So, if an on-site officer is usually going to be too far away even if he is in the room next door, what if we gave everyone a gun? What if the teachers (or maybe even the students) had guns? It still wouldn't be fast enough. They wouldn't draw fast enough to stop the first shots. Yes, having guns there does cut the shooting short, and this is of great value. But, if the goal is to make your policing effort equal to the threat, you want to stop the shooter before he has killed anyone. So, if you policing effort is to be equal to the threat, you will need to take the weapon away from the shooter before he can use it.
So, consider gun bans, if you will. Trouble is, you have the Second Amendment to deal with. Many (if not most) feel the Second Amendment does not allow for a ban. You also have the argument the shooter might get a gun despite the fact they are illegal.
I think I'm back to liking metal detectors in our schools. Metal detectors are working at airports. If we are looking around and seeing what is working, this is a proven defense.
Now, I'm thinking one of the reasons we are not moving quicker towards metal detectors is that some believe that they, too, are a form of gun control. Others oppose them simply because they -- in the verbiage being used -- turn the schools into prisons.
As for the first reason -- the thought metal detectors infringe on the right to bear arms, I do not hold with the thought. You still have the right to bear a gun -- to own it and carry it around with you. You just cannot take it onto someone else's property if they do not want you to. Their rights trump your rights.
As for the second reason -- metal detectors turn the school into prisons. If the need for protection is severe enough, you take the measures, anyway. Call it turning the school into a prison, if you will, but if it will save lives, I think it must be done.

Tuesday, March 20, 2018

The Police Presence Should be Equal to the Threat

  I was excited to hear the officer might have cut a shooting short, as Deputy Blaine Gaskill responded to the sound of gunfire today at a Maryland high school today, and fired at the young gunman.
  It is neat if lives were spared. Oh, perhaps the gunman was only after the girl -- no more. But, if he might have killed others, and the shooting was cut short, then that is neat.
  From my perspective, this is how we should be responding to school shootings, and mass killings: Placing officers where the shootings could happen. Instead of calling on everyone to pack a gun, up your number of officers so it equals the threat. Don't leave all your officers at the police station five minutes away. If you need an officer at every school, hire one at every school. If you don't feel one officer is enough, hire more. But, make the police presence equal to the threat, and let the teachers and students leave their weapons at home.

Monday, March 19, 2018

Like the Early Americans did it, Give States a Say in This

   So, you suppose it is up to the federal government to decide what to do with immigrants?
   You will be surprised to learn, then, that the very first federal law on the subject deferred to the states.
   Oh, it set forth federal requirements for what you must do to become a citizen: You must be a free white person, you must have lived here two years, you must be judged to be of good character, and you must take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
  But, then, right there at the end of the act, it said. "no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."
  Today, we consider it all a federal matter. It is interesting, then, that the first federal law should defer to the states. It makes you wonder if there is value in getting back to doing it they way the early practitioners of our nation did it. Let the states have a say in whether immigrants become citizens.

Sunday, March 18, 2018

I Differ with the Other Online Commentors, But Respect Their View

   There was march supporting undocumented people yesterday. Wish I had known about it. Would have loved to have participated. Read the news story and the online comments. Most every comment ran against the marchers, and was along the lines of, "How dare you even stand up for these people; They are criminals." Sometimes, in stating my opinion, I can be a little tart. Just the same, sometime ago, I made a determination to show a respect for the opposite viewpoint as I express my opinion. So, I tried to do that in my online comment. It received no likes and no one responded to it, so it obviously didn't get much consideration. Still I like what I said and the way I said it, so I will share it with you below.
   "Bless those of you with a different opinion than what I have, which appears to be all but one or two on this thread. We simply have two different perspectives. From my perspective, the Constitution is behind these people. The Declaration of Independence is behind them. I have read the four spots in the Constitution that concern, or are said to concern, immigration, and considered them carefully. Many of you, also, have read them and you have come to a different conclusion. As I see it, yes, these people are violating laws that we have created. But, no, they are not violating the Constitution, which (to great surprise) actually calls for a path to citizenship.
   "I wonder whether the thought of deporting these people even crossed the minds of the Founding Fathers. Studying history, it seems it may have been foreign to their thoughts.
   "So, I say, bless those who marched on behalf of the undocumented. They are perhaps the most oppressed and wrongfully vilified members of our society. Bless those who stand up for them, and who would rescue them.  The undocumented have held rallies in the past, but I wonder if any have had this much support from non-immigrants."

Note: Blog introduction changed early 3-19-18 as I used the intro I had used in my blog.

Saturday, March 17, 2018

The First Laws gave Immigrants a Path to Citizenship

   Is this significant? The first laws on naturalization established no rules for those not yet in the United States. Instead, they established rules for what a person already living here had to do to gain status as a citizen.
   If that doesn't sound like a path to citizenship, I don't know what does.
   Others have different opinions. Mine is that when the Founding Fathers, in writing the Constitution, gave Congress authority to create rules for naturalization, they were not granting authority to say who could and could not immigrate to America.
  No, they were only giving Congress authority to grant a path to citizenship for those already here.
  And, that is the way it played out in the first such law Congress created. "An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," as it was titled, was enacted March 26, 1790. (Hey, does that mean that in another week, it will be National Constitutional-Right-to-a-Pathway-to-Citizenship Day?)
   That first law said any free white person having lived here two years could be admitted as a citizen, providing the court judged him to be of good character, and providing he took an oath to uphold the Constitution.
   Doesn't that amount to a path to citizenship?
 


Here's the text of that first law on naturalization:
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.  And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.  And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:  Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.



Friday, March 16, 2018

If They Walk Across the Border, They are Legal

   Someone suggested to me that the court basis for restricting immigration rests in Gibbons v. Ogden. Ah, then here's a notable discovery.
   If Gibbons v. Ogden is the basis for keeping them out  . . .
  This is going to surprise you.
  While those coming in by jet, and ship, and truck, and train might be illegal, those walking across the border are perfectly legal.
   I confess, I wonder if anyone has bothered to read Gibbons v. Ogden. It notes the Constitution gives the federal government authority over commerce. And, since migration takes place with people coming in by vessels, then that means migration is commerce. So, therefore, the federal government has authority over immigration.
   But, what if a person doesn't come by vessel? What if he doesn't come by commercial jet, or ship, or truck, or train? What if he walks? Gibbons v. Ogden doesn't apply to him. The only immigration Gibbons v. Ogden restricts is immigration coming by commercial vessels. If a person walks across the border, he is legal.
  So -- let's see -- the very immigrants we oppose the most -- the ones walking across the Mexican border -- are the ones who are legal. The very immigrants Trump's wall would keep out are the ones who are legal.















   Someone suggested to me that the court basis for restricting immigration in the U.S. lies in Gibbons v. Ogden. Ah, then someone should read that court case. If this is what our immigration system is based on, then . . .
   Listen up; This will surprise you.
   While those coming in by jet, and ship, and truck, and train might be illegal, those walking across the border might just be perfectly legal.
   Has anyone read Gibbons v. Ogden? It suggests the federal government has always had authority over commerce, and since migration takes place with people coming by vessels, then that is commerce, so, therefore, the federal government has authority over it.
   But, what if a person didn't come by vessel? What if he didn't come by jet, or ship, or truck, or train? What if he walked? Gibbons v. Ogden wouldn't apply to him. The only immigration Gibbons v. Ogden restricts is the immigration involving vessels. If a person walks across the border, he is legal. So -- let's see -- the very immigrants we oppose the most -- the ones walking across the Mexican border -- are the ones who are legal. The very immigrants Trump's wall would keep out are the ones who are legal.

The more Answers You Come up with, the More Votes You Will Lose

   Philosophers make poor politicians. If you practice finding solutions to issues, in the political world, you will always offend. Every answer will have an enemy. If your answer falls in favor of gun control, for example, everyone against gun control will vote against you. Thus, the more answers to the world's problems that you come up with, the more votes you will lose.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Nor does Article 1, Section 9, give the Feds Authority over Immigration

  If that part of the Constitution that enumerates the powers of Congress doesn't give the federal government power to dictate immigration policies, then how about the very next paragraph?
   That would be Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 1. "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."
   This is clearly not referring to the general immigrant. It is referring to the importation of slaves. It gives Congress authority to end the importation of slaves beginning 1808.
   It uses the words "migration" and "importation" together, which indicates it is speaking of the slave trade. Slaves are "imported," not the general immigrant. Further, at the end, it says a tax or duty can be imposed on such importation. That is a tax or duty that was only imposed on slaves, not on everyone who came to America. So, it follows that this part of the Constitution is not referring to immigrants in general, only to slaves being imported.


Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Let the People be My Lobbyists

I've filed for public office, again. This time, I might have a different approach. After spending years coming up with answers to all the world's problems, so to speak, it is a turnabout for me to decide I want to legislate by gathering ideas from the public, and temper my own ideas by keeping them within the mandate of the people. I'm giving this thought, though, and might decide to go this direction. Here are two drafts of a short speech I could make. In some places, what I say is a little disjointed, as I come up with quotable lines and try to fit them together. These two takes need to be consolidated and expanded.

SECOND TAKE ON MY THOUGHTS TONIGHT:
  I'd like to legislate by gathering my ideas from the public. So, instead of me bringing my ideas to the capital, let me bring yours. If I have something I want to do, let me run it by you first, to see if you buy off on it. Government for the people, by the people, and of the people, Abraham Lincoln said, and I'd like to be a facilitator of that type of government.
  There will be times, perhaps, when I must vote my conscience. But, even then, let me seek your input, your reasoning. Let me see there must be times when I set down my own views to vote, instead, the way you would have me.
   And, as for the legislation, itself, I think it would be wonderful if I let you suggest it. I'm talking a little bit of a twist from the way things are done now. Currently, a lobbyist approaches the legislator and so the legislator crafts a bill. And, why not? the lobbyist is his constituent, right? I'm not going to say I won't listen to lobbyists, but instead of spending all my listening time with them, I'd like to spend the bulk with you. Let you -- the people -- be my lobbyists.

FIRST TAKE ON MY THOUGHTS TONIGHT:
   Ours is a representative form of government, and I'd like to be a more truly a representative of the people than what is common. Now, I have my own thoughts on the issues, but maybe it is time we, as elected officials, took our mandate from the people, more than we do now. So, instead of me bringing my own ideas to the capital, let me bring yours. Let me gather your ideas, let me ask you what legislation you would like to see, and let me take those ideas and proposals up to the Hill.
  I'm not talking, "Let me run a survey, and ask you which are your priorities: Education, pollution, and so forth." No, I'd like to step beyond that. I'd like to ask you for the solutions. I'd like to ask you for the legislation.We have gun violence and school shootings: What should we do? Instead of composing a blue ribbon commission on school safety, why not let you, the people, come up with the solutions?
 Your brightest minds are often in the public. We, as elected officials, should turn to the common person more. We need to put the public back in republic. Re means repeat over again, so republic means the public over and over and over again.
   So, when we, as elected officials, seek input, perhaps we should seek it from more than the lobbyists. Let the people be my lobbyists. I am not saying, Officialdom is Officialdumb, but I am saying common wisdom comes from common people.
  What is it about us --as a society-- that makes us think our suggestions have to come from someone official before they amount to much? Notice how newspapers sometimes don't print guest editorials unless they are written by someone with credentials? Notice how governments often don't put someone on a committee unless they are "experts"? 

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Schwab's Resigning in Protest Underscores What is Going on

  If you can take a group of poor people, hiding in the streets, and spin them into dangerous criminals, its going to go a long ways toward justifying your rounding them up and deporting them.
  Just take that guy in the small shack down the street -- the one working by the sweat of his brow to support his young wife and child -- and persuade folks to believe he is the town's next rapist.
  They'll be running from him and begging ICE to put him on the next train out of town.
  So, just doctor the figures a little. You can find a criminal in any group of people. When you find a criminal, all you have to do is hold him up as an example and cry how the whole bunch of them are just as bad.
  Realizing this type of misrepresentation is common, notice how a federal ICE spokesperson just quit in protest for being asked to spread falsehoods about the immigrants. James Schwab, of  the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement office in San Francisco, resigned, saying he was being asked to give out wrongful information.
  Here's how this came down: The mayor of Oakland got wind of ICE's plans to make a raid, so she warned the people. When the U.S. Attorney General's office heard what she had done, acting ICE Director Thomas Homan said, "There's over 800 significant public safety threat criminals . . . that we are unable to locate because of that warning, so that community's a lot less safe than it would've been." (This quote taken from a Fox News story.)
   Enter James Schwab, the ICE spokesperson in San Francisco. "We are never going to pick up that many people," he told the San Francisco Chronicle. "To say that 100 percent are dangerous criminals on the street, or that those people weren't picked up because of the misguided actions of the mayor, is just wrong."
   Schwab's resigning in protest underscores what is going on, how innocent, harmless pheasants (if I can use the term) are being spun into dangerous criminals in order to make us feel good about deporting them.
 

Monday, March 12, 2018

Looking Around at What's Working, This is Something We Should do

  We must wonder about the simplest of checkpoints, if they serve as deterrents to mass shootings. If concerts and sporting events are off limits to guns, and we do not have an overly number of shootings at them, then why is that? Is it that the shooter is afraid of being shot back at by someone who does bring in a concealed weapon? Is he afraid he will have people on both sides of him, and that they will be close enough to stop him? I suppose it could be for these reasons. Still, I wonder if part of it is no more than that he must go through a check point -- the ticket-taker -- who is going to spot and stop any large gun or assault rifle.
   Yes, I believe we should have more metal detectors. I tend to think we should have them at every school. But, what of a simple check point -- period? What if no school could be accessed without the person passing by a school administrator?
   It's a simple fix, and it might not be a great fix, but it is something that could be done as quick as the morning sun, and without any expense for those schools choosing not to use more than principles and vice principles to man the doors. If President Trump were to no more than ask schools to do this, we could start doing it the very next day.
 

Sunday, March 11, 2018

If a Person gets Drunk, but doesn't have a Car to Drive . . .

  I see comments on how society has long had guns, and of how everybody had a gun in their truck when they went to high school back in the day, and yet none of them ended up being mass shooters. What has changed? the commentors ask, and then answer that, noting society has. 
  They are right.
   But, they are passing off the influence of guns a little too easily. Not everyone is affected the same way by owning and carrying a gun. Some people are more predisposed to misusing them than others.  Ninety-nine out of a hundred might not misuse them, but it only takes one to have a mass shooting. Has society changed? Perhaps more people are predisposed. Then, again, perhaps it isn't that society, itself, has changed, but that the idea of using guns this way is now out there. Bad ideas spread. Copycats follow. First Columbine, then a trail of other mass shootings. 
   At any rate, guns remain part of the equation. They are the tool being used, so you cannot say they are not part of the equation.  Compare it to drunk driving. If a person gets drunk, but doesn't have a car to drive, he can't get on the highway and kill someone. 

Saturday, March 10, 2018

If this is Something so Many Agree on, Why are We not Doing it?

   So, in the wake of the Florida school shootings, the dust is settling on what will be done to fix things. And, what is perhaps the best fix is being left been undone.
   Untouched.
   Passed over.
   Background checks. Better background checks. Universal background checks.
   If the whole idea is to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, you have to screen out those who shouldn't have them.
   Must.
   It's Step One.
   If you don't screen them out, how do you expect to keep them from having guns? Isn't it clear that if you don't make the checks to determine who shouldn't have guns, you can't suppose to keep those who shouldn't have guns from having them?  Isn't that simple enough to see?
   Oh, I guess there is one other option: We could ban everyone from having guns. If we keep everyone from having guns, that will include those who shouldn't have them.
   Hmm? Which will it be -- banning everyone, or just those who shouldn't have them?
   Now, we already have background checks, but they don't cover every sale. As it stands, only licensed gun dealers are required to run background checks. That does cover 78 percent of the sales. It doesn't include 22 percent. That's a significant number of sales going unchecked.
    A survey of experts in 2017 came back with them picking universal background checks as the #1 effective policy to reduce gun deaths -- the #1 thing that needs to be done. If the experts are saying do this -- if they are saying it is the #1 thing that should be done, and if we are scrambling around to do something -- anything -- and if there doesn't seem to be much objection to doing it, why are we not doing it?
   Why?
   If we can see we have to prevent some people from having guns, and we don't take the steps prevent them, just how shortsighted are we? We should see this has to be done, but we are not doing it, not 100 percent.

(Note: Slight changes made 3-11-18)
 

Friday, March 9, 2018

Here's Why the Land Near the Airport has Value Like None Other

  Can I quote from a Steve Winwood song? (I'm going to throw a change-up in for the second line.)
       While you see a chance, take it
       Find a future -- shake it
       Because it's all on you.
   The song swirls in my mind as I read a Deseret News headline: "Utah board game lovers unite at state's biggest gaming convention."
   More money has been made through conventions and tourism than many imagine. If you can expand on your tourism -- and make it good, clean tourism -- you should.
   Now, seems I read in a textbook on how to create tourism that the best trick for starting up a tourism industry is to begin with all the hobbies and games, and interests and pastimes that people have. (Okay, there is no such textbook on how to build tourism, but if there were, perhaps it would say this is the best starting point for sparking a tourism industry.)
   Look no further than Comic Con to see that when there are fans, they come running.
   If someone is a bird-watcher, and somebody organizes a convention so all bird-watchers can gather to share their adventures with each other -- all while watching birds at one of North America's greatest migratory bird flyways . . .
   They might fly all the way across the country to get here.
   Now, what if you made it as affordable, accessible, and easy as possible? Convenience sells, you know. There are a million bird-watchers, but some can't afford a $1000 vacation. You'll maximize your tourism if minimize the hassle and expense.
   Plant your tourism right next to the airport, within walking distance. Yes, save the best land -- the land closest to the airport -- to cater to Monopoly players, and chess players, and high school choirs, and Revolutionary War hobbyists, and . . .
   There are thousands of hobbies, thousands of interests, each with a million people to flock to your city.
   Make it so they can fly in, walk over to their convention, and fly out the very same day. Tourism without luggage, vacation without planning. Just get on a plane, fly in, and fly out. No hotel necessary. You don't even need a taxi. Set up free shuttles for venues that might be a little too far to walk to, but make them, also, as accessible and easy-to-get-to as possible.
   Move your Greyhound station next door. Relocate your Amtrak there. But, consider that your airport -- your international airport -- is the key to making this work. It is why the land next to the airport has value like none other.
   Just what was it that the Steve Winwood song suggested? (The second line being revised.)
       While you see a chance, take it
       Find a future -- Shake it
       Because it's all on you
   It is all on us -- on Salt Lake City and Utah. If we want to do this, we can. If we waste the land, then that's on us, too. The land stretches out west as far as the eye can see. We can shoot out a tourism district just a mile or so, or we can keep on going with museums, and amusement parks and softball fields. We can mix in a global trade hub, if we like, but must remember that whatever land we do use for things other than tourism will be lost from tourism forever. Bringing in the hobbyists can open the door to other types of tourism, just as a spark can lead to a fire.
   But, the industry can only grow if there's room to grow. The size of your dream is only limited by the size of your frontier. So, we might want to keep the frontier as big as we can.

Thursday, March 8, 2018

Constitution Grants California the Right to Create Sanctuary Cities

   If these are the arguments California is making -- if these are the things that state is suggesting -- then it is well within its rights in creating sanctuary cities.
   Words have their meanings, and the founding fathers knew what words they were using when they granted the federal government authority to create a path to citizenship so those moving here could be naturalized as equals with those born here.
   Should we not assume that if the founders had wanted to grant authority over immigration,  they would have used an appropriate word? Could they not have said, "immigration" or "migration," if that is what they wanted to talk about? Instead, they chose the word, "naturalization," and we must assume that is what they were talking about.
   Words matter. They have different meanings. To assume they meant meant one word when they used another is a weak argument.
   "The Congress shall have Power . . . To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."
   Since naturalization does not mean migration, the process of naturalization does not include controlling who shall come to the U.S. Since the founders were talking about rules allowing those from out of country to become equal with those already here, that is what they were talking about.
   They were talking about what they were talking about.
   Now, since the Tenth Amendment says all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, then if anyone has authority over immigration, it is the states -- and California happens to be one of them.
   So, if California chooses to have sanctuary cities, it should be allowed to do so. It is but acting under the authority given it in the Constitution.

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

The California Revolution for Immigrants

  Hearing of California Gov. Jerry Brown saying U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions is "initiating a reign of terror" against California immigrants, I cannot but feel surprised at the support for immigrants coming out of California.
  An old Chris de Burgh song -- "Revolution" -- comes to my mind, long forgotten, till this moment, when it rushes to my memory. I look up the words when I get home from work.
     Wake up boys, there's a light at the window
     I can hear someone knocking on the door
     There are voices in the street
     And the sound of running feet
     And they whisper the word
     'Revolution'
   Is California really standing up for the immigrants this strongly? I think back a week or so, when the mayor of Oakland warned the immigrants of her city of an impending federal raid. At the time, I blogged of how it reminded me of Paul Revere warning of the coming of the British.
   "This is basically going to war against the state of California, the engine of the American economy," Brown says, in response to Sessions' filing lawsuit against California's attempts to help the immigrants. "It is not wise, it is not right and it will not stand."
    So, we have a little bit of a "war." I stand with those who fight for freedom. I stand with those who are standing up against the federal government.

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Does the Constitution Infer a Path to Citizenship?

   If you would, read the Constitution -- and read it thoughtfully. If you do, you just might question whether it grants any authority to restrict immigration.
   Now, here's a thought: If the Constitution doesn't grant such authority, and if government is restricting immigration, anyway, is it government that is being illegal, rather than the immigrant, and should we not then be speaking of Washington as being an "illegal government," instead of speaking of those coming from outside our borders as being "illegal immigrants"?
   Well, if you are the government, and you disobey your own constitution, doesn't that make you an "illegal government"?
   So, before we take this whole national discussion on immigration any further, it might be worthy to open the Constitution, read it, and consider what it says.
   It should be our authority on this matter.
   It does talk about naturalization. In Article I, Section 8, in enumerating the powers of Congress, it spells out that the federal government has authority, "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."
    So, we should ask: Is "naturalization" the very same thing as "immigration"? Are the terms identical? Are they interchangeable? Or, do they have little different meanings? Does "naturalization" refer only to the process of granting citizenship once people arrive --with no restriction on whether they come? Does the fact that the word "naturalization" is used instead of "immigration" or "migration" suggest that a path to citizenship ought to be guaranteed to all immigrants?
  Well, does it?
   Naturalization appears to be the process by which those born abroad are granted equal status with those born here. There can be no such naturalization if there isn't a path to citizenship.
   For that is what the term is all about.
  So, it is we in our day who speak of "a path to citizenship." We coined the term. Back in the day, was a path to citizenship assumed? Was it a given?  Did the forefathers take it for granted? To them, was it a foregone conclusion?
   To read the Constitution, you must wonder but what it surely was. It certainly seems to. Forsooth, I say, the highest law in the land does appear to be mandating a path to citizenship.
  You look at our nation's first laws on naturalization, enacted in the 1790s, and you will see they made no effort to restrict immigration, nor to set rules by which people could come. No, they only established rules by which those already here would be naturalized
    They laid out the path to citizenship. That's all.

Monday, March 5, 2018

Of the Bill of Rights, and of Making Criminals out of those who aren't

   If you study who is protected most under the Bill of Rights, you might want to consider the plight of the immigrant.
   Make that, the "illegal" immigrant.
   The Founding Fathers clearly were very concerned that people not be falsely accused, nor wrongly jailed, for amendments four through eight are pretty much devoted to protecting those accused of crimes. In total, no less than 14 protections for the accused are scattered through our Bill of Rights.
   Surely, the founders wanted to protect against government's making criminals out of those who are not criminals. More than anything, this is what the Bill of Rights is about.
   So, consider our undocumented immigrants, and whether they are unjustly rushed into the circle of "criminals." We even call them "illegal" immigrants, which from the start places them in the category of criminals.
   But, do they belong there?
   Consider: The immigrant becomes illegal for no worse of an act than drifting too far to the north. He commits no more of a crime than breathing American air, and standing on American soil. Well, is that not the full measure of his crime? Is that not the whole of what he is doing wrong? For simply breathing American air and standing on American soil, he is tossed into the circle of criminals.
   You forgive me, but I certainly consider it brandishing the criminal label upon him when the criminal label does not belong upon him.
   The founders devoted much of the Bill of Rights to safeguarding against government making criminals out of those who are not. I would suggest, when it comes to the immigrant, that is precisely what we are doing: We are making a criminal out of a person who is not.

Friday, March 2, 2018

We have the 2nd Amendment for a Reason, You Know, and, This is it.

   If the idea of the Second Amendment is to give us weapons to fight off the federal government should it ever come calling to take our freedoms away . . .
   If this is what the Second Amendment is all about, then what think you of how this loss of freedom is happening -- all across America -- and no one is even calling for the justice and protection of the Second Amendment.
   Do you know of what I speak? No? Then, let me tell you. I speak of a people who hide in the shadows, anxious that the government not find them, worried that the feds will root them out, and arrest them, and toss them in jail, and take their freedoms away.
   What do you think? Should we not arm this group of people? Should we not tell them the Second Amendment was written for them, more than for anyone else? Yes, more than for anyone else. After all, what other people are having their liberties assaulted by the federal government? What other people are being rounded up, and hauled off to prison, simply for standing on American soil?
   I speak of the immigrants, of course. Specifically, I speak of those our government has labeled "illegal immigrants" and "illegal aliens" -- defining them as criminals for no more reason than existing and breathing and living on American soil.
   What do you think? Should we not be encouraging them to go out and get their guns? It is their Second Amendment right, you know.
    Looking back on the history of America, I don't think you will find a better example of the federal government coming and looking for a people, rounding them up, stripping them of their freedoms, and hauling them off to jail. You won't find a more exact instance of this: government arresting people just for living on American soil and breathing American air.
   So, yes, if the Second Amendment is there to protect against freedoms being taken away, it is there for the immigrants, for it is they, more than anyone, who have their freedoms being taken away. It is they, more than anyone, who have their inalienable rights being assaulted by government.
   Isn't this what the Second Amendment is all about? Some would say it is. So, if you are to argue this is what the Second Amendment is all about, do not short the immigrant of its protection.
   What is government tyranny, anyway? Isn't it when government is oppressive, and harsh, and unjust? What is more oppressive, and harsh, and unjust, and tyrannical than this? These people are "illegal" for simply being on our streets! You call that justice? I call it tyranny.
   If tyranny is when you take away their freedoms simply because you can -- simply because you are the authority, you are the government, and you have the power -- then isn't this tyranny?
  You would suppose that since these people were not born here, they have no right to come unless we give them that right. But, consider: If tyranny is when you assert they have no rights because you have not issued them any rights, then isn't this -- of all things -- tyranny? Freedom does not come by government issue; it is inalienable.
   So, I say, give them all the guns they need to protect themselves from our government's tyranny. Preach up the Second Amendment. Inform them of their rights. Tell them to be patriots. Let them know that this is America, and that in America, they don't need to succumb to tyranny, they don't need to be herded away like sheep.
   We have the Second Amendment for a reason, you know. And, this is it.

Thursday, March 1, 2018

911 would Reach the Nearest Gun Holder

  To save our country -- to prevent mass murders and school shootings -- some suggest we arm as many as possible. They suggest that if every place is saturated with weapons, regardless where a live-shooter shows up, there will be a gun to neutralize him.
  Law enforcement by the body of the public, then. Instead of relying on police, let the general populace do the work.
  But, I think we should point out that what is being advocated does differ from how we traditionally respond to crime. Is our defense against bank robbers the general public? Do we rely on concealed weapon holders, or open-carry weapon holders, to respond to bank robberies, or thefts or whatever other crime there is?
  I mean, if this is the formula for fighting mass shootings, should it be the same defense system we use against all our crimes?
  After all, you could organize it well beyond what it is. When a 911 call came in, it could ring through to a ready network of gun-holders, with which ever of them closest to the crime responding.
   Who needs a police force? Your public is your police force. 911 reaches the nearest gun-holder.
   Law enforcement by vigilante force.
   Now, make no mistake: I am not advocating such a system. I am only suggesting that if we took what many gun advocates are recommending as an answer to mass shootings, and if we applied it to the whole of our response against crime, this is what it would look like.