Thursday, May 31, 2018

Our Nation is Paralyzed by the Fear of Violating the Second Amendment

   If we were to let the students vote on whether to have metal detectors, and armed officers, and all other questions regarding school safety at their schools, it would belie the fact they still would be able to make the one decision many of  them want to make.
   Whether to ban guns, at least assault-type weapons.
That, it would appear, cannot be their decision.
But, should it be ours? Should we, the adults, be deciding whether to ban guns? Or, is it a Constitutional question, one beyond not only the reach of kids, but beyond our reach as well?
   What is written is what is written (meaning the Constitution) and is too sacrosanct to be messed with?
The shifting sands of society create surprises. One would not have thought there would be such wide-spread acceptance of same-sex marriage. Now, the Second Amendment? It has been sacrosanct. Is that day nearing an end?
   I judge that for the moment, it remains sacrosanct. How long that remain, I do not know. But, we are frozen, as a nation, on what to do on guns, and it might be that the reason we are frozen is because we fear going against the Second Amendment.
   Think of the protests. In them is pressure. Think of the outcry for change, the demand to do something.
   And, yet nothing, The best we've done is a little movement on bump stocks. Meaningful legislation? None.
School shootings sprouting up everywhere, a national outcry to do something about them, and yet our nation's leaders can come up with no solutions. And, I will tell you why (or, at least I wonder if this is why): If they come up with anything at all, it will be considered gun control. We have it in our heads that any rules we make on guns means we are are adopting gun control and gun control is forbidden by the inspired document known as the Constitution.
   No matter that we already have metal detectors at airports and they are a huge success. We cannot have them in our schools because that would be gun control. For the moment, we are more frozen by our fear of violating the Second Amendment than we ever have been. We already have background checks, but we will not expand them to provide that even those buying privately and at gun  shows must be checked. No, for the moment, we are too frozen to do that.
  Perhaps the reason we are frozen is because there is a connection. Our champions of the Second Amendment see the students and others protesting, and can see where the path is leading and know the day could come when guns might be outlawed.
   They see a slippery slope. They fear that if they allow give in to any gun control at all, the dam will give way, and soon, guns will be outlawed.  They see the connection between giving a little and losing a lot -- losing even everything.


Wednesday, May 30, 2018

Let the Kids have the Vote on School Protection

   Are there times when kids have earned the right to be the decision-makers? Take the school shootings: They've protested  They've carried their concerns out into the streets. They've gotten behind megaphones and screamed their little hearts out.
  They've suggested something needs to be done. Now.
   So, let them do it. Let them take the action. Let communities nationwide decide if the students in their schools will make the choices.
   Metal detectors? If the students want them, give them to them.
   Arming the teachers and staff? Let the students decide.
   Armed resource officers? Invite the city police in for regular patrols? Have gun-totting community volunteers take shifts? Involve veterans? Let the students decide most everything about what the schools will do.
   Everything except maybe one thing, and I wouldn't let the students go there. I wouldn't let them touch one decison. I don't think we can let them decide whether they, themselves, should carry. No way. Just my thought, and there might be those who disagree, but I don't think it safe to have students pack.
   Which makes me reflect. If we can see it would be a major catastrophe if we let 17-year-olds march around in in mass in public with weapons, doesn't that suggest it is also unsafe to have too many adults doing the same? Children grow up, yes, but there are always some who hang on to such tendencies.


Tuesday, May 29, 2018

Let the Children Decide Whether They will have Metal Detectors

   There are times you should let children vote. I do not know if you draw a line at 14 or 16 or if you let everyone of them vote, but I do wonder if there is a matter before us for which the children should be the decision-makers.
  Metal detectors.
  Even if we can see that metal detectors would make a difference -- even if it is evident that if most all schools had them, there would be fewer school shootings -- should we force them on the schools. After all, having metal detectors does seem the wise thing to do. Sometimes, though, what you do should not be so much a matter of what is wise, but of what is preferred.
   A matter of choice, a matter of preference.
   It is the students who are being affected. It is they who are at risk, and they who -- if we had more metal detectors -- must live with them. Every time they entered the building or school yard (depending on where the metal detector were placed) they would face the hassle of clearing through the metal detector.
   Some students might think they'd become prisoners in their own schools.
   So, let each school decide. Perhaps the school administrators make the decision, perhaps the parents do   -- and perhaps some schools would let the students, themselves, cast the votes on whether to have the metal detectors.
  Think of all the activism of students since the Parkland shooting. There is cause to suggest they, themselves, should make this decision.

Monday, May 28, 2018

You cannot Suppose to Own the Blue Skies of Heaven

Says a friend on Facebook:
   I don’t believe a person has an inalienable right to trespass on another person’s property. When you cross a country’s border without permission then you are essentially trespassing.

I reply:
   That supposes ownership. I don't know that in a land of the free, anyone owns the country, just the same as no one is the king of this land. You cannot take the blue skies of heaven and suppose to own them. You can live under them, but that does not make them yours. God's green earth belongs to everyone.

Further thoughts I have:
   I consider on the opinion I just offered. I think of Israel, and wonder about it being a land for Jews, and whether restrictions on others should be allowed. So, the opinion I offer above is one I continue to consider. I also do -- in fact -- give thought to the ownership of America being a right of those who are already here at the exclusion of those who seek to come. Perhaps I will think on this as I go to bed. 
   

Is Freedom to Move from One Country to Another a Right?

  If we were to list all the inalienable rights we suppose the founding fathers were referring to when they adopted the Declaration of Independence, the right to move about freely would be one of them. Indeed, back then there were no restrictions against moving to America. Can someone tell me if there were restraints on moving to England, or to France or to Germany? Back then, freedom of movement from one country to another was considered a natural right -- at least in the 13 colonies -- and I would not be surprised if elsewhere.

Sunday, May 27, 2018

Does Truth Mean there are Political Truths?

   Does truth mean there are political truths? Does the fact that truth exists mean there are going to be truths in the world of politics and social issues?
   It would certainly seem so.
   And, what then of the thought that we should  seek the truth of all things? All things includes politics. The social issues of our day are important. If there are truths to be had, are they not, then, important?
   What I am saying is, that while it is wonderful that each person be allowed their opinion, there are times when only one side is right.
   What then of the scripture, suggesting that by the spirit, we might know the truth of all things? Does it leave out political matters? Does it exclude us learning the truth when social issues are the matters at hand?
   Of course not. If God inspires mankind, he can inspire on public issues.
   Which means this: When we have political opinions, they can -- at least sometimes -- be right or wrong. And, they can be inspired; It is possible to get your answers through inspiration.
  You and I are not anointed prophets. We are not always going to be inspired. We might be inspired on one issue and think we are inspired on another issue and actually be far off the mark. That does not mean inspiration does not exist. What it might mean, though, is that we sometimes follow the rules for receiving inspiration, and other times we fail to do so.
  One of the principles is to think. Oliver Cowdery was told he should not just ask the Lord, but should first study the matter out in his mind. Inspiration comes when the mind is doing its thinking. Another principle is to have an open mind. You cannot be inspired if you are not open to the truth. And, a principle related to the above two is to be in search mode. If you are not searching for the truth, why should you expect to find it? And, lastly, related to being open-minded, you should be open to God's will.

Saturday, May 26, 2018

We are not a Dictatorship, but Forcing Patriotism isn't a Good Thing

  It has always been at odds with what our country stands for to force patriotism. In a communist country, you might be forced to be allegiant, but not in America.
   As much as anything, this compelled allegiance to state is what sets the dictatorships apart from free countries. I think of Germany long ago, and of Cuba, and of the old Soviet Union -- places where allegiance was forced.
   As much as anything, requiring obeisance is what those countries are all about. Iran? Is it any different there? Forced loyalty is the mark of a dictatorship.
  So, we should be thoughtful and concerned with what happened in the United States this past week. The freedom to express oneself against the government was infringed upon. Football players were told, in essence, that acts seen as not being patriotic would not be allowed. If they show such lack of patriotism, they will be fined.
   (I think it worthy to pause, to note that those who have kneeled during the National Anthem, are almost without exception, people who do love America, and do give it homage, and do respect the sacrifice of our soldiers. It is we who judge them otherwise. It is we who judge them as doing something unpatriotic. It is we who demand that they follow our rules for their patriotism.)
   Forcing patriotism upon a people is not the mark of a free country, and that we have reached this point should be a concern.
   You might suggest it is not the government that is forcing the players to stand during the National Anthem, but a private entity (the NFL). What is being done is still wrong. Also, consider that the nation's highest official both called for action against the players and lauded it when it came. The president of the country is standing both behind the move and in front of it.
   No, we are not a dictatorship. The move by the NFL has not landed us there. But, we should be concerned about taking on the trimmings of a dictatorship. We should be concerned we are compelling patriotism, even as a dictatorship does.

(Note: The suggestion that forcing loyalty is something a communist country would do is not an original observation, as I heard it on Jay Macfarland's KSL Radio show.)
 

Friday, May 25, 2018

Immigrants no Longer were Numbers

   The Individual Immigration Authority wasn't established until 2019, bringing with it sweeping changes in immigration law in the United States -- changes that hadn't even been considered just a year earlier. While immigration reform had been discussed ad nauseam, nobody had ever proposed or even thought of these changes.
   It had always been about numbers and qualifications, quotas and requirements.
   But, no more. Now, it was about the individual. If the IIA  reviewed an individual and found no reason for not allowing entry, that person was allowed in.
   Faces instead of numbers. The IIA sat down with each person and simply decided if that person should be accepted. Everybody was decided on his or her own merits, without any set criteria.

Thursday, May 24, 2018

In this Free Speech Matter, We have no One but Ourselves to Blame

   This time, we have only ourselves to blame that one of our basic freedoms is under assault.
   The NFL announced those who kneel during the National Anthem will be fined. President Trump lauded the measure and suggested those who kneel maybe shouldn't be living here in this country.
  Thus, freedom of expression took a hit. Those who would express their views by kneeling during the anthem have been banned from doing so. They will be fined. Freedom of speech should mean not only the right to say what you want to say, but -- to a large extent -- to choose where and how you say it.
   But, I would guess public opinion is behind the NFL on this one. Hey, ratings were down in the NFL this year, and you have to wonder if that, at least in part, was due to those who boycotted the NFL due to those taking a knee during the National Anthem.
   The NFL is simply responding to the public outcry and trying to recapture lost customers. So, if free speech is under assault, we have no one but ourselves to blame.

Note: Lightly revised 5/26/18

Those Who would give up Liberty for Safety Deserve Neither?

   As I search to find reason for not placing metal detectors in our schools, I think of this quote, from Benjamin Franklin:
   "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
   I do wonder at us, if we let this quote stand in the way. It's a good quote, and a nice sentiment. I just wonder if someone thinking metal detectors are a good idea might have second thoughts upon hearing Ben Franklin's words.
   Me? I think it is wise to have the metal detectors regardless of Franklin's quote. The best thing to do, is the best thing to do, even the same.
   And, the logic of the quote might not apply. What if we feared a hurricane were coming, and were told to button down the hatches, but we realized that to hole up at the expense of going out on the town that night would mean surrendering our freedoms?
   I cannot see the difference.

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Is there Good Cause for not having Metal Detectors?

   Why our schools are not jumping to install metal detectors is a wonder to me. Why there isn't a national outcry for metal detectors, I do not understand. But, there must be a reason.
   So, I word search. Up pops an article titled, "5 reasons metal detectors in schools are a bad idea, according to security expert."
  The expert is Ken Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services,  a man who has testified before Congress various times on the topic. Trump argues:
 1. A metal detector needs to be coupled with other measures and those other measures simply aren't realistic. You would need to run the metal detectors around the clock, shut windows so no one could sneak guns through them, and every entrance and exit would need to be manned. Everyone would need to be screened every time they entered.
   What do I think? Yes, the metal detector would need to be in operational all hours the school was open. I don't see that that is a problem As for closing windows, that might enhance the system, but it isn't integral. You still have a large benefit even without sealing off the windows. But, if we concede the point and seal off windows and all exits, is that so great a burden? To me, it is not.
   As for everyone needing to be screened every time, that, again, might enhance the system, but if schools wanted to let their teachers and staff get entry without going through the metal detector every time, that could be done, and the benefit of screening everyone else would not be lost.
   2. The cost would be too great.
   My reply: The metal detectors are affordable, in my eye. Say they cost $20,000 per school. To me, that is affordable.
   3. Metal detectors cause a false sense of security.
   My answer: If they stop crime, that is what matters. If you are afraid having them means other measures will be overlooked, then simply don't overlook and do take those other steps, as well.
   4. There are better ways to discover whether guns are being brought onto the school grounds.
   My response: Say, what? If you want to do other things, that is fine. But, why is this an either-or situation? Why must it be either metal detectors or something else? There is nothing wrong with doing more than one thing.
   5. A student is more likely to be bullied than shot.
   My response: What? Run this one by me again. I don't understand. What does this have to do with the matter at hand? How does the fact being bullied is more likely than being shot have anything to do with whether we should have metal detectors?
   Forgive me if I am wrong, but the article comes across -- to me -- as something generated by the gun lobby. I would say, though, if these are the reasons against metal detectors, there is not good cause for not having them.

(Note: Slight edits made 5/27/18)

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

If We Honor the Constitution, We Amend the Second Amendment

  If we place metal detectors in our schools, is that breaking the Second Amendment? If there is to be no law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, then taking the weapons away upon entry of a school is preventing them from bearing arms.
 I've posited that it does not violate the Second Amendment. I've suggested property rights trump the right to bear arms on someone else's property.
   But, am I right. Yesterday, I looked at the Constitution. I didn't find what I wanted. In the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments, it does say no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. But, we are not talking about taking their property away, but what rights they have when they have property.
  Then, there is the Fourth Amendment. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Rather than substantiating a person's right to prevent guns from being brought onto his property, the Fourth Amendment carries weight substantiating the right to bring guns onto another person's property.
  When we use metal detectors, does that amount to searches and seizures? I think a strong argument for that can be made.
  I think of all the churches and stores that do not allow people to bring guns onto their properties. I think of the metal detectors at airports. I wonder on this matter. I believe property owners should be allowed to dictate whether guns are brought on their properties. This seems, even, an inalienable right. And, I believe it wise that we do have metal detectors at airports.
  If the Constitution is ambiguous, or if it can be used to argue that property owners do not have these rights, then that Constitution should be changed. It dishonors the Constitution to practice against what it says, but it respects that blessed document when you take the provisions it itself offers for changes, and you make those changes. It does provide a way for amendments to be made, and we should make amendments when that is wise.
  If we can see property owners should be allowed to say whether guns will be brought onto their properties -- if we can see this is just and fair -- then we should have the courage to make laws equal to the justice. And, if the Constitution is where those changes must be made, we must have the courage and spine to make those changes.
   The Constitution was not meant to stand in the way of justice. If it can be construed that it in anyway is an impediment to justice, we do it no honor by arguing that it is so inspired that it should not be changed. It is so inspired that it provides a way for changes should they needed.
   If we honor the inspiration of the founding fathers, we make the changes necessary.

Monday, May 21, 2018

Should Property Rights be Spelled out in Our Constitution?

   One wonders if property rights should be more clearly spelled out in our Constitution. Oh, the Constitution is clear that owning property is a right:
   "No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . ." the Fifth Amendment
   "(N)or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . " -- the Fourteenth Amendment
   But, what rights come with owning property? Do you have the right to restrict others from entering, from trespassing? We have laws on locking weapons up, but should property rights preempt such laws? If you own the property, should it be your decision as to whether you lock up your guns? Should you be allowed to run around naked on your own property? Is what a person does in the sanctity of his own home, his own business?
  Some of the rights that come with owning property would seem to fall in the classification of inalienable rights. Surely, for example, you have the right to restrict others from entering your domain. By definition, that seems to be your right, whether any law spells it out or not.
  There is at least one place in the Constitution that addresses property rights. The Fourth Amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized."

Sunday, May 20, 2018

Truth 
in the hands of the dishonest 
will likely benefit 
dishonesty

When in Possession of the Unjust, Truth can Lead to Injustice

   If it is not used right, truth can be the weapon of injustice.
   I lost a good Facebook friend this week. I blistered him with the truth. Oh, I was gentle and kind in what I said. But I was public. I exposed him. I unmasked him.
  With no thought of that incident, yesterday I was blogging and wrote: "We should wonder at ourselves, as a society, and of how in this day and age, we revel in finding fault, in finding flaws and making those we find with them, pay for them. We feel ourselves the doers of good to find and exploit and correct the faults of others, to unmask them for their flaws and put them to shame. Rather than showing love for them, we heap upon them humiliation and rejection."
   Aye, I am the villain, here. It is I who sought to unmask someone. He had said everything in a report from a Church lawyer about a voters' initiative on marijuana was false, and we had agreed to discuss it and started down the list of things the Church said, examining them, and each thing the Church had said was coming back as a truth.
   I wanted the public -- his readers -- to know he was not being fair. I wanted him exposed. So, I tore off his mask.
   And, lost a friend.
   Today, reading Boyd Matheson's column in the Deseret News, I find a wonderful gem of wisdom. Says the Sage One:
   "Few things are more jarring than a truth spoken at the worst possible moment. The I-told-you-so truth, while still truth, does little to elevate others, create space for learning or improve a situation. Hitting people over the head with truth in the heat of an argument is contrary to the nature and power of truth."
   If truth is to be a power for good, it must be used for good. Most anything can be abused, and that includes truth. When it is in possession of a person with bad intentions, truth can be the weapon of injustice. Indeed, when it is in the possession of those of us with good intentions, if we do not use it correctly, truth can do great damage.
   When a doctor goes into do surgery, he isn't slamming things around. He moves them delicately. So it is with truth. It must be handled delicately or great damage will be done.

"Throw Them in the Sea" Does not Reflect Well of Today's Society

  I give you a reflection of society in this day and age in which we live: Refugees pour into a Greek island, their numbers being greater than what the island feels it can sustain, and the people rise up in protest against the immigrants, yelling, "Burn them alive," and "Throw them in the sea."
  That the people did not want the immigrants might be beside the point. The point is that it is never good to wish for someone to be burned alive or to be thrown back into the sea. Expressing such sentiments does not reflect well on you. It does not reflect well on you, as a society.
   I think about us, as a world. I do not know whether we are a colder, more unloving society than those of the past. I only know that whatever we think of societies of the past, such sentiments as this do not reflect well of the society of our day and age.

A Loving Society would have Fewer such Shootings

  If you are the star tight end on the team, you will reap your share of love from the community. But, if you are the last guy off the bench, you might not receive much love, and maybe even come to be somewhat rejected.
   If you are derided and ridiculed for being smelly, you certainly are going to feel embarrassed and humiliated.
   If you seek to date a girl, and she stands up in class and announces she will not go out with you, that is public humiliation.
   It should be hard to dismiss such factors, as motives are sought as to why Dimitrios Pagourtzis killed classmates and teachers at his school in Sante Fe, Texas.
  What is it we know about a cornered person? When you sting and hurt someone, they often lash back. Hate begats hate.
   This does not justify -- at all -- what Dimitrios Pagourtzis did. The terrible loss of life is a horrible thing. But, these things do give us cause to wonder if lack of love, lack of acceptance, was a motive for the mass shooting.
  And, if we are looking for solutions, perhaps we should consider that a society strong on love might well have fewer school shootings -- or at least might not have had this one. If we love those such as Dimitrios Pagourtzis -- if we do not shame them, or publicly reject them -- there might be nothing for them to lash back against.
  It is the nature of the human to lash back. Take that away, and you take away some of these shootings. We should wonder at ourselves, as a society, and of how in this day and age, we revel in finding fault, in finding flaws and making those we find with them, pay for them. We feel ourselves the doers of good to find and exploit and correct the faults of others, to unmask them for their flaws and put them to shame. Rather than showing love for them, we heap upon them humiliation and rejection.
  If we would have less shootings, we should become a more loving society. It would not end all of these shootings, but it would end some. 


Saturday, May 19, 2018

A Reflection of a Society that has Lost its Ability to Love

   When we are accused, we strike back. It is the nature of the beast, the nature of the human. So, as investigators look into a motive for the school shooting in Sante Fe, they should consider that school coaches reportedly picked on Dimitrios Pagourtzis "for smelling bad."
   Bullying can come from adults as well as from fellow students. Picking on others for being smelly is one of the most common forms of bullying.
  At this point, we should consider that bullying might have been a factor. Knowing that the coaches castigated the youth for being smelly, we should look into that. You can encourage a person to be clean without demeaning and belittling them. How did the coaches handle it?
  Also, Pagourtzis was on the football team, but evidently not a wonderful player. Did a desire to achieve and gain self-worth play into his becoming a school shooter?
  Unlike most other shootings, the shooter is alive, and can be interviewed and there is a better chance of identifying the motive. Investigators should push for that motive.
  If we are looking at the causes of these school shootings, and what can be done to stop them, love is an answer. It would do no harm, at the very least, if we launched a national effort to love children. Love might seen like a silly answer, but it is not. Love makes more difference than anything. If we looked at all these school shootings and said, "It certainly points out the need for us to be a more loving society," we would be wise.
  These school shootings might be, as much as anything, a reflection of a society that has lost its ability to love.

Friday, May 18, 2018

Metal Detectors: Will President Trump Call for Them?

   “This has been going on too long in our country. Too many years, too many decades now," President Trump said in response to the Sante Fe shooting.
   Then, he goes on to say this -- and that he is saying it is significant: "My administration is determined to do everything in our power to protect our students, secure our schools, and keep weapons out of the hands of those who pose a threat to themselves and to others."
   The President having proven himself to be a man of action, I have to believe he will be taking action this time.
   And, I have to wonder if that something will be metal detectors. It certainly falls within the perimeters of securing our schools.
   This is something that can be done. something that would protect our schools and would make a difference  -- so much so that you have to ask, "Why are we not doing this?" I tell myself, it shouldn't offend gun rights advocates -- yet, surely it does, or we would be doing it.
  You are not banning guns. Are you worried about the right of the people to keep and bear arms? You are not preventing anyone from keeping and owning guns. You are not banning guns. As for bearing guns, the property rights of the school are trumping the right to bear guns on the school grounds, as the schools should have the right to say whether guns are allowed on their property.
   This does not seem to violate the Second Amendment. Why are we not doing it?
   If President Trump does call for metal detectors, they will work, at least to a large degree. He will be a hero. His legacy will be favored by this as much as by any other thing he has done. 
   

Encourage Parents to Keep Their Weapons Away from Their Children

   At every juncture, we should be learning from these school shootings and using what we learn to do things differently. We should be looking at what is happening and why it is happening, and we should be responding.
   Immediately.
  I find it strange that this is not happening. Can we not readily see part of the problem in the Sante Fe shooting, yet we see not not one word in the media about how to fix it?
  The guns of the parents are falling into the hands of the children. Now, we do have some laws requiring guns to be locked away. I do not know if Texas is among them. But, we should see such laws are hard to enforce, anyway. And, there is the question of whether you are violating a home-owner's rights. And, if you require guns to be locked away, that means they aren't as readily assessable when you are faced with a home invasion. So, these laws have their shortcomings.
   But, two things we can do. One, I'm not so sure about, but when the shooter has obtained guns not being locked away in violation of the law,  investigate whether the parents can be prosecuted for not keeping them locked up. Perhaps, in all the shootings, none have fallen into this category. And, perhaps it is perceived that such laws are not Constitutional, so those who break them are never prosecuted.
   Know this, though, if such laws were enforced in these shootings, many parents would start obeying the laws to keep their guns secured in fear of doing jail time if they don't.
   The second thing is to start a public campaign encouraging parents to lock their weapons up when there is no reason for leaving them laying around. If you need the gun to be out on the night stand to be ready for a home invasion, keep it out. But, if you do not see that need, please lock it up. We should have our president and our other leaders loud in making such a plea.
   You do what you can when you witness these shootings. Sometimes, you respond with an answer before the day is out. You look at what you can and cannot do, and you do the most you can, even if it seems like it is not much. Surely, such a public campaign is something within the reach of what can be done, and what should be done.

Thursday, May 17, 2018

What does Balaam and the Angel have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

   In the Bible, there is the story of Balaam and the Angel. And, I wonder if it doesn't offer some insight on what we should do regarding the Second Amendment.
   The prophet Balaam was enroute to see Balak, who wanted Balaam to curse the Israelites.  As Balaam  and his donkey travel, an angel wielding a sword blocks their path. The donkey sees the angel, but Balaam doesn't.
   I wonder if Balaam not seeing the angel is symbolmatic. Balaam wanted to serve the king of the Moabites. He wanted to help them. Was he so desirous of favoring the king that he was blinded to the fact the Lord was not going to curse His own chosen people? The angel represented the Lord's will, but Balaam was so blinded that he could not see the angel.
  Someone might say that even a dumb (animal) could see the Lord did not want Balaam to serve a king who opposed to the Lord's people, yet here Balaam was a prophet of God and he could not see it.
   Even so, anytime we let our own wishes, desires and beliefs block our view, we block the path of revelation.
  What does this have to do with the Second Amendment and whether it should be changed? I have suggested that if America is to prosper, its leaders must remain inspired. Even as our forefathers were inspired, we also need to be. Wisdom once, must be wisdom going forward.
   But, that inspiration will not come if we are not open to receiving it -- if we block its path with our own desires and suppositions.
    Truth is truth. It will stand up to reasoning. We should study and consider this issue and be ready to accept whatever truths might be. We should look not to vindicate our own beliefs and wants, but to see and accept the truth.
    Some might say that even as God would not condemn his own people (the Israelites), even so, He would not condemn His own inspired document (the Constitution). Others might say that even as He wouldn't join sides with the Moabites and advocate against His own cause, even so he wouldn't join sides with the gun, the tool of murder, and advocate for it.
   Both of those analogies are fun to consider. Rather than rejecting one in favor of the other, I would suggest we accept them both. Just like the angel standing in front of Balaam and his donkey was something he should have seen, we should be able to see truth in both of these analogies. If we reject either, it is a sign we, like Balaam, are blind to the truth.
  But, let us realize the real question is whether guns are harmful, or whether they are helpful. Or, rather, when they are harmful, and when they are helpful. Just as both of the analogies are true, even so it is true that guns can be both harmful and helpful. If we are wise, we will determine when the gun is helpful, and when it isn't -- and we will make our laws accordingly.
   Often, inspiration is no more than seeing truth and accepting it. Wisdom is no more than this. The things that are obvious, you accept them. Those who fight against truth are neither inspired nor wise.

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

Let Prudence Determine Whether the Second Amendment is Changed

   Have we forgotten the gun? The national debate has certainly died down. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the Constitution says.
   And, so I have been writing on how our Constitution should be a living document. Some have feared that if we have a convention of states to change the Constitution to prevent us from going in debt, other changes might creep in.
   Such as gun control. Such as erosion of the Second Amendment.
   So, I ask, should we change the Second Amendment? Or, is it sacrosanct?
   I believe the Constitution was inspired -- but not perfect. I believe we, today, must be inspired. We must be equal to the task of weighing what is wise and what is just. In this, I include consideration of the Second Amendment. I believe we should ask what is wise. Should we have any impositions, any restrictions at all upon guns?
  Ask only what is wise. Determine what to do based on what is prudent. Consider the issue. Weigh it. If we determine change is wise, then let change come. If we consider the matter and decide to keep the current language, so be it.
  Wisdom once, must be wisdom going forward. If the founders were wise, so must we be. We have the benefit of experience over our predecessors, and it is said, the person who will not learn from experience is a fool.
 

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Document Directing Governance should Spell out how to go about it

   I now believe in a living Constitution,  one that provides the framework for all that government is currently doing.
   Government shut downs? Bill paying? A brief statement on how to handle or avoid such crisis should be in our living Constitution.
  Executives orders? Direction on how much leeway the President should have should be in our Constitution.
  These are basic matters of governance. They should be directed by a basic framework. That basic framework is your constitution.
  I've reached my thought after reading four quotes from George Washington. "The Constitution which at any time exists," begins one. What does he mean, "at any time exists"? Is the Constitution to be so fluid that we should say, "which at any time exists"?
  Perhaps so. If George Washington envisioned it as a fluid document, then let it so be. Washington, on more than one occasion, spoke of expecting the document to change. On one occasion, he said he did not expect that those in the future would not be wise enough, or inspired enough, or in possession of enough virtue that they should not be up to the task.
   I know we look at our current politicians and wonder. Do we trust them to make changes in our Constitution?  Isn't this -- to many of us -- an inspired document? Can we trust them to make changes?
   Can we trust ourselves. We are the ones who elect our leaders.
   I think how people rise to the challenge of what they are charged to do. They rise to be equal to the tasks they are entrusted with. I would hope such a principle would be at play here.
   And, I do feel we would be better governed if we governed this way. I do feel the way we come up to the last day of paying our bills and the way we threaten with a government shutdown so often is a travesty. I do wonder if we are ruling too much by executive order. I do feel we should have governing principles keeping us from such unwise governing practices.
   And, it makes sense that if you are to have principles guiding how you govern, the document containing them should be your constitution. I do not know the exactly why George Washington spoke of changing the Constitution, but I do wonder if he simply could see that a principle of good government is to have the document that directs your governance dictate how you are to go about that governance.
   If we believe Washington was wise in the principles of good government, we should consider whether this is what he had in mind. But regardless what he was thinking, we should see for ourselves that this is a principle of good government.


Four quotes attributed to George Washington which discuss changing the Constitution: 

“The Constitution which at any time exists, ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.”

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."


"I wish the constitution, which is offered, had been made more perfect; but I sincerely believe it is the best that could be obtained at this time. And, as a constitutional door is opened for amendment hereafter, the adoption of it, under the present circumstances of the Union, is in my opinion desirable."



"The warmest friends and the best supports the constitution has, do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable, and are sensible, if evil is likely to arise therefrom, the remedy must come hereafter; for in the present moment it is not to be obtained; and, as there is a constitutional door open for it, I think the people (for it is with them to judge), can, as they will have the advantage of experience on their side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are necessary, as ourselves. I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."

Monday, May 14, 2018

George Washington on Changing the Constitution

Four quotes attributed to George Washington which discuss changing the Constitution: 

“The Constitution which at any time exists, ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.”


"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."


"I wish the constitution, which is offered, had been made more perfect; but I sincerely believe it is the best that could be obtained at this time. And, as a constitutional door is opened for amendment hereafter, the adoption of it, under the present circumstances of the Union, is in my opinion desirable."


"The warmest friends and the best supports the constitution has, do not contend that it is free from imperfections; but they found them unavoidable, and are sensible, if evil is likely to arise therefrom, the remedy must come hereafter; for in the present moment it is not to be obtained; and, as there is a constitutional door open for it, I think the people (for it is with them to judge), can, as they will have the advantage of experience on their side, decide with as much propriety on the alterations and amendments which are necessary, as ourselves. I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us."

Sunday, May 13, 2018

Death by Marijuana

   I wonder, as I have in the past, about the assertion that no one has ever overdosed on marijuana. Everyone says it. Everyone believes it. Or so it seems.
To me, it seems false on its face. Marijuana affects your heart, and, therefore, heart attacks can be more likely. . . .
  And, so, death by marijuana is possible. The suggestion that no one has ever died from marijuana is simply a myth.
  Searching the Internet, I find a website of Harvard Medical School that backs up what I am saying. It says the risk of a heart attack increases several times over in the hour after smoking marijuana. The website suggests that maybe this is not a significant threat to those without heart problems, but it should be a concern to those with heart disease. It says there is also some indication that an ischemic stroke is more likely to occur right after the use of marijuana. "Consistent with these links, studies by Dr. Mukamal and colleagues also suggest that marijuana smoking may increase the long-term death rate among heart attack survivors," says the online article.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/marijuana-and-heart-health-what-you-need-to-know


Saturday, May 12, 2018

With Mothers, It's not about Stature, It's about Service.

   If anything, a mother is self-effacing. They do good without a credit line, without seeking acclaim. Honor goes to those elected to office, and to those who succeed in the business world, and to those who are sports and entertainment stars. And, while a woman can become each of those, her role as mother does not come with such acclaim. Rather, as a mother, she gets little recognition. Being a mother doesn't come with bright lights and headlines. It comes with anonymity. Changing diapers and and washing clothes has yet to win a Pulitzer.
   With mothers, it's not about stature, it's about service.

Wisdom Once Must be Wisdom Still, if Our Nation is to Prosper

   George Washington suggested that, having the advantage of experience, we should make alterations in the Constitution. "I do not think we are more inspired, have more wisdom, or possess more virtue, than those who will come after us," he added.
   Wisdom once must be wisdom still, if our nation is to prosper. The father of our nation had more faith in us than we do in ourselves, for we worry that if we start tinkering with the Constitution, too many things might go wrong.
    If the founders saw that the document would need to be changed -- if they suggested we be equal to the task -- then let us not cower from those things that should be done. 
    I also read that Washington said,  "The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government."
   This same Washington said that if corrections needed to be made, the amendment process would be the way to go about them. "But let there be no change by usurpation," he said, perhaps referring to times we make changes in government without first changing the Constitution.  "For though this," he said, "in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
   I think of how we have rulings on abortion -- and yet abortion is not even mentioned in the Constitution. I think of how we take guns from convicts while at the same time insisting government not infringe on gun rights.  I think of how we restrict the freedom of immigrants even though the Constitution spells out no such authority. We simply say it is necessary and expedient, and that a nation without borders isn't a nation, and therefore we restrict immigrants from coming. Are we "usurping" our authority? Is this the pattern by which governments are destroyed?
   I will repeat, the founding fathers saw that we would need to be equal to the task of self-government, of making changes to the Constitution. They placed in the Constitution a way to go about these changes, and they probably expected we would take advantage of the system they created.
   Maybe, after more than 200 years without a convention of states, we should not be so fearful of having one, but rather we should be troubled that we haven't had one.

Thursday, May 10, 2018

And, We Continue to Say there is no Evidence of Collusion?

   Russian billionaire Viktor Vekselberg allegedly poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into one of Michael Cohen's accounts, even the same account that reportedly paid out Stormy Daniels.
   Cohen was Trump's attorney; Vekselberg was close to Putin.
   Seems to me this story marks a major breakthrough in the case of collusion. It is striking, then, that some continue to say there is no evidence of collusion. Yet, in the online comments beneath a story on Cohen, I find the comment, "If you have ANY evidence that President Trump colluded with the Russians, please, please produce it!"
  The story of Viktor Vekselberg, Renova and Columbia Nova might not have made it in every newspaper, but it should have. We are so numbed from all the Trump stories that this one didn't adequately catch the attention of some of us.

Wednesday, May 9, 2018

How have We ever been Numbed

   You hammer a nail long enough, it goes into the wood.
   I consider how long President Trump has insisted the negative news about him is fake news. He has beat that drum and pounded that nail, and, as a result, many in the public are believing him.
I wonder what we would have thought of today's tweet from him, if it had been the first time he had tweeted or said such a thing.
   "The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?"
   If this were his first salvo on the topic, how would it come across? How well would it be accepted? How much outrage would there be against it?
   News is news. If it is negative, it is negative, but you still report it. If the Cohen stories are negative, they are still news. You don't say, "Nope, we can't report that because 50 percent of our stories are already negative and that will put us over the limit. It isn't fair to President Trump to be reporting so much negative news."
   Cover the news with comments from both sides of the issues, but cover them. If the Cohen stories and other stories are not including comments from the White House, then that is wrong, but I am seeing Sarah Huckabee Sanders and others being sought out for their comments.
   The last part of President Trump's tweet? "Take away credentials?"? What does he mean? Is he suggesting that those who report all the news instead of just a part of it -- those who include even the negative news -- ought to have their "credentials" taken away? And, what are their "credentials"? Is he going to take away their access to the White House? Is he suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to report at all?
   If this were the first time President Trump had suggested all this, we would shake our heads in disbelief. We would look at how he seemed to be suggesting that all negative news about him is therefore fake news, and we would be outraged.
   There is a fable about how if you stick a frog suddenly in boiling water, he will jump out. But, if you put him in while the water is tepid and then heat it up slowly, you can boil the frog. I don't know whether that is true. But, I do see that the principle seems to be working on the American people.
   We would be outraged if this were the first time Trump had made such a claim. But, we, as a nation, hardly seem outraged. Even if there were no scandals to that point, if this were the first tweet from Trump on the topic, we might be calling for his resignation on this one comment, alone. We would be taken by surprise and would be in utter amazement.
   But, we've been numbed -- how have we ever been numbed.







"The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?"

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

Patty's Daddy, Bill Speakspanish and the Journey to the Watering Hole

   Patty's Daddy, they called the old horse, and each morning he would amble out of the barn and past the water trough and up the hill to a fresh stream of water, where he would drink all the water he would need for the day.
    Of course, if he did need more water, he would amble right back up that hill.
   The old horse died a number of years ago, and his owner, Bill Speakspanish  -- to honor his horse -- took up the practice. He would wake in the morning, and pass though the kitchen long enough to gather his food to take with him. He would then pass through the village park and climb the hill till he came to that same little mountain brook Patty's Daddy once drank from -- a stream where the freshest of water flowed.
   And, he would drink his first drink of the day, then sit down to eat his meal.
  If he needed more water later in the day, it was back up the hill.
  Not all water's the same. If you want the freshest of water, you have to pass by the faucet in your kitchen and the past the fountain in the park. You have to go up where the water is the purest.
   But, old Bill Speakspanish took a bigger benefit from going to the mountain stream than just being rewarded with good, fresh water. It was the journey. As he climbed the hill, he would pass through the gentle meadows, and up the picturesque trail. He would listen to the chirping birds, and look back across the peaceful valley at the beauty of the sunrise.
   It set the tone for his day, for the peace he gathered from it then saw him through the day.

Monday, May 7, 2018

If We were a Wise Society, We would not Focus so Much on Riches

   Those who seek to be rich seek to be rich. When a person chooses a profession because it will make him rich, he continues to focus on the goal of money once he has landed the job.
   And, so we should see there is a weakness  -- or, at least a limit -- to the argument that if you don't pay an executive well enough, your business will not thrive. There actually might be a danger in seeking out candidates who are in it for the money. When they focus on how much money they make, they sometimes do not focus on the details of making the business better.
   Everyone wants to make a decent living. But, if you think there are not those in the world who choose their profession altruistically, you are wrong. Some want to be police officers, and teachers and social workers because of the good they can do, not because they are going to become rich.
  Now, you might assume that those who pursue these careers are not as intelligent or as talented as those who aspire to more prosperous careers, but that would be a mistake.
  Those who really make a difference, are those who value making a difference above making a dollar. If you love achieving something, if you love improving something, you sometimes sacrifice pay for the opportunity to make the world better.
  If we were a wise society, we would not focus so much on ensuring riches for those we place in key positions.

Sunday, May 6, 2018

If We would Open our Eyes to why We have a National Debt

   If we don't realize why we have a national debt, we won't stand much chance of reining it in.
  And, we don't -- We don't realize what is causing us to be $21 trillion in debt.
   Too many entitlement programs? Too many wars being fought, and the expense of fighting a war is too much? Too many undocumented people coming across the border and taking advantage of our largeness?
   Yes, many will tell you that the way to reduce the national debt is to reduce the size of government. And, that is not altogether inaccurate.
   I will tell you this, though. We are always going to need to put warplanes in the sky. We need to have as large of a military as is required to meet any threat. So, it might not be wise to cut the size of our military too much.
  Entitlement programs? Are we giving too much to the poor? I think of the words of the Savior, "The poor will always be with you." So it is that there is always going to be a need to take care of them. And, even if we were to decide to cut most of our social service programs, we would run into deep opposition. If nothing else, as I argue that cutting social programs is not the most practical way of cutting the deficit, I ask that you realize this much: There are times when people die for lack of medical coverage. Yes, we should fit the bill to keep them alive. Cutting such spending is not the right way to cut the national debt.
  What I'm saying is, if we are going to reduce the national debt, we are going to have to figure out a way to do it without just cutting programs. Oh, don't get me wrong, cutting programs should be done, and will save us money, but, the same, it is possible that it is not the most possible way of cutting the national deficit.
   There is a surer way to go about it. Why is the debt so high? Look and see, for it should be obvious.
   To a large degree, it is because government pays too much for what it does buy. It pays inflated prices.
  There is a rule in economics: You charge as much as you can; You charge as deep as a man's pockets will go. If his wallet has only $50 in it, that's all you can get; But, if it has $2,500 in it, collect all of it, if you can get it. Go as deep as his pockets will go.
   Government has deep pockets. Why so? For one thing, it can borrow, with no limit on how much it can borrow.
   This is money we don't need to be spending. We do not need to be paying $15 million for a single fighter jet. And, since government is paying for a fair chunk of our medical bills these days, consider that we, as a nation, do not need to be paying as much for medicine as we are. Fifty thousand for a hospital stay? Like government's, our pockets have been made too deep. The medical industry is sucking money from us it never had access to 200 years ago. It is sucking not only from what we currently have in our pockets, but from what we will (through credit) and from not just what we have, but from what those richer than us have (through insurance), and from not just what we have in the bank, but what we have in assets (through liens).
   Shallow pockets have been made into deep ones. You may not be rich, but it has been arranged for you to pay beyond what you can afford.
  And, for the purpose of what we are discussing here, you reduce the price of medicine, period, and you will reduce the national debt.
   The things government buys are, in large measure, things we pay too much for. And, these prices can be reduced. All we need to do, is to look on the hill, and see all the executives living high up there, and tell them, "No, I'm afraid you cannot live quite so high on that hill. We're not blind. We can see where our money is going. And, we can see we can't afford it. We know you tell us that if we don't we don't pay you executives so much, we will not get the same quality of jets and MRI machines, but we are here to tell you your living in million-dollar mansions isn't making our F-15s any more battle-worthy. We are here to tell you that your living in these million-dollar homes isn't translating into more lives being saved when people go to the hospital."

Saturday, May 5, 2018

Tucker Carlson and the Crisis in Higher Education

   In a civil world of politics, we would take time to pat each other on the back when we make a point. I have thought it would be neat to recognize others for significant thoughts, or for taking significant stands. I don't know that I will follow up on this, by doing it again next month, but this month I honor Tucker Carlson of Fox News for his coverage of higher education the past month.
  Young Americans are receiving worse educations than perhaps ever before. They are partying more than studying. And, while the level of education goes down, the grades are going up. Grade inflation, Carlson calls it. Carlson might not have used this term, but how about diploma mill? Are our colleges, to some degree, becoming diploma mills?
   And, all while, costs are up --fueled by student loans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBqmmGEQTng

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fh6LtBYmiI

You don't need to Overcome Your Successes, only Your Failures

  "You're either buried, or you're going to come back." Coach broke out into a smile. His team was down 70-40 at halftime. But, he was smiling -- still -- because he knew every moment was a coaching moment; Every day was a lesson to give.
  "It might be we will be able to catch them, or it might be we can't. We're big enough for this.  Play every play as if it is a mini game -- just seek to win that one play -- and who knows but what all the plays will fall together we'll come back. But, we can only give ourselves the opportunity if we play well in each possession, and in each defensive effort."
  Coach paused. "You don't learn how to win until you learn how to lose. You're going to get beat, and you better learn how to handle it. If you let Chris Paul's burning you on a three-pointer convince you you can't stop him, you won't. Did you see the look of resolve in James Harden's face the other day? Champions aren't champions just because of their talent; They're champions because of their hearts. They resolve to do better. They look for openings to do better. They don't let their failures stamp them as failures, but they overcome their failures. You're only a failure if you accept failure. You beat these guys once, and you can do it again."
   As I saw the coach turn and walk out the tunnel, I thought how every day is a coaching moment
and every day there's a lesson to give. If you are going to coach, you've got to teach how to deal with every situation, including being down by 30 points.
   And, I thought how important it is to preach belief -- And, how this is the best moment of all to teach it. If a person doesn't believe in themselves, they won't overcome their problems. The most important moment for teaching belief is when there's the least reason to believe. This is the moment the players could crack. Your players don't need to overcome their successes, only their failures. So, this is the moment you must teach them. It is in the darkest moments that the coach must coach the most.
   Even so it is with us and life. If we would lift each other, we must learn to lift each other at the darkest moments. And, we must believe in each other in the darkest moments. If we don't believe, how can we convey belief? How can we persuade the other person to believe?
   Just as a coach must do his best coaching when his team is losing, so we must muster our best effort to help others when it seems they are beyond help.
   The greatest friend is the one who lifts another from his greatest fall.

Friday, May 4, 2018

The Higher Cost of Higher Education is Due to the Lending Industry

  The higher cost of higher education: If you wonder why our education costs have increased from what they were so many years ago, look no further than government and student loans.
  You can afford to pay more when you are playing not just with money currently jangling in your pocket, but with money you will earn years down the road. There's a bigger pot of money available. And, if this is so, then it is also true the education industry can charge more if they have this bigger pile of money to collect from.
   Money you've not yet earned makes them richer. If they could charge no more than what a person could pay at the moment, they would not be able to charge so much. But, with the advent of student loans, more money was spread on the table.
   I have said, If you place more money on the table, somebody will sweep it up. It's one of the basic principles of economics. We've placed more money on the table, and they've swept it up.
   If we would reduce the price of higher education, we would take government out. No more student loans. Educators would then be forced to keep their fees within the parameters of what the students and their parents can afford.
   And, we would ban third-party loans and third-party collecting. If a school wants to extend loans, let it, but it must serve as its own collection agency. If we were to pull loans out of education all at once -- banning them, period -- it would drive the price of education down too fast. we need to correct our problem incrementally. So, allowing the schools to continue to collect while not involving third-party collecting will curb the lending practice while not subjecting the system to going cold turkey.
   It might even be wise to do these two things in succession, instead of at the same time, this in order to space out the impact. First, cut government loans, and, later, ban third-party collecting. Maybe even reduce government loans, at first, and then ban them altogether.


You learn not from ancient secrets
so much as you learn from life

Thursday, May 3, 2018

With Immigration, the Person Who Walks is the Person Who's Free

  You stick a person on a boat or a plane or a train, and he is going to be an illegal immigrant. But, if he walks across the border, or crawls across a fence, he might just be legal.
   Yes, the person who doesn't accept a ride across the border might just happen to be the person you can't stop. As in: you can't do anything about him. You can't deport him, and you can't kick him out.
   I'm probably wrong about this. I'm hardly a lawyer, and my search on the Internet has not yet yielded as much information as I'd like.
   But, yes, I'm wondering if the immigrant who walks is the immigrant who's legal. He's the one who doesn't need to ask for permission. He can say, "What do you mean I'm not legal? I didn't come in a boat or a plane or a train, did I? I didn't even come on the back of a truck -- I know a lot of us immigrants come on the backs of trucks, and I can see how you say that is illegal.
   "Me? I just walked. So, how am I illegal?"
   You see, when immigration law in the United States was first being established, the Commerce Clause in the Constitution was used to argue that government has the power to regulate that immigration.
   It breaks down this way: If something is transported, it becomes commerce. If a person comes on a boat or a plane or a train, he is being transported -- and, is commerce. Same with all those migrants stuffed on the back of trucks.
   All those immigrants are just part of our nation's commerce. And, the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate trade and commerce with other nations and between states.
   But, if a person walks, he is not being transported. He is not commerce.
   So, you remember those eleven (or however many) migrants from the caravan who crawled across the fence a few days ago in San Diego and were arrested?
   I'm just wondering if they were falsely arrested.

Wednesday, May 2, 2018

If the Immigrant wants an Open Hearing, Let Him have it

  The paper tells me the that now the caravan migrants are here, "the next steps in their journey will unfold mostly out of public view."
  Guess why.
   "The courts often conduct business behind closed doors," says the Associated Press story. "Files are not public, and unlike criminal or civil courts, access for journalists and others is limited."
   If I were one of the immigrants, I would demand my case be open to the public. I'd read them from the Sixth Amendment. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial."
  Yes, I would say, I know this isn't a criminal prosecution. It's an immigration hearing, which is different. Still, if you would, I would like my case to be open to the public. With the interest there has been in our caravan, and with the right the public has to know what is going on, it just seems the right thing to do to keep this hearing open. This is a public matter and it should be open to the public.
   Now, there might be some of the cases where the immigrants do not want their cases to be open. Their lives might be in jeopardy back in their home countries, and details of who is after them and who might kill them might only add to the danger they are in.
   Let the immigrant, then, make the choice on whether the hearing is open.

 

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

They Can't Win -- You are Going to Attack Them Either Way

  I caught just a few snippets from Fox News' coverage of the immigrant caravan that has reached the border. Fox's spin was that the immigrants are being coached and are gaming the system.
   I wonder on that. It seems to me that if they are being told what they need to gain entrance legally, that is what you want. You have said for years that you aren't against immigration, you just want them to do it legally. So, along comes someone who tells them how to do it legally, and they strive to do it legally, and now you decide they are gaming the system.
   They can't win. You are going to attack them either way.
   We once heard more of the angle that our laws were just, and that instead of trying to break in illegally, the immigrants should go back and come in the right way. Right now, we aren't hearing so much of that -- that our laws are just -- but rather that they are weak. It's a little change of attack, as anti-immigration forces shift and adapt to stop a sudden surge in immigration.