The hatred of a nation
will lead to the erosion
of its freedoms

   There are at least three ways this will happen. 

   One, As one segment of society hates another, it will seek to restrict them. Blacks were once relegated to the back of the bus, and not allowed in certain restaurants, for example. 

   You may question some of my other examples, but I will give them, anyway. 

   A portion of those who oppose kneeling at NFL flag ceremonies might have hatred in their hearts, and they seek to limit the kneelers from expressing their grievances. (I said a portion; Not all those who would shut down the kneelers bear feelings of hatred towards them.) 

   And, a number of those who do not want people coming in from other countries bear a spirit of contempt -- even hatred -- for those immigrants. The immigrant loses his freedom to come here because of this hatred. You might say we are not losing a freedom in this, because no American is having his freedom taken, only those from outside this country. But, it is the freedoms of the nation, itself, that are being impinged on. If the nation once offered the freedom, and that freedom is taken away, then, yes, the freedoms of the nation are being reduced.

   Two, The hatred of people leads to crimes against other people. Nothing represents the loss of freedom more than being shot and killed. And, when someone steals something, they are taking away another person's freedom to own and use that property. And, when they take someone hostage, they are taking away their freedom.

   Three, Nowhere is the hatred of our nation more evident than in the division of Republicans and Democrats. They hate each other, plain and simple. Intimidation shuts people down. Freedom of speech becomes a casualty when someone castigates you for your beliefs. The weight of hatred crushes your desire to express an opinion. Thus, we have one of the reasons people often say they don't discuss politics. Some do so out of an unfamiliarity with the issues, but others have definite opinions but are timid about revealing them because of the hatred they fear from others.

In Our Immigration Policies, are We a Land Only for the Privileged?

   These days, they will tell you, "Immigration is a privilege, not a right." I will wonder, then, how America has drifted, for there was a day when it was the other way around, and we were all about rights, not privileges.
   Back in the day, it was a freedom to come to America. And, now, this: We say it should only be for the chosen, the privileged. We speak of "merit-based" immigration, where some people bear merit and others don't. If you are not a person of "merit," you shouldn't be allowed to come. That's our thinking these days.
   Has America become a land only for the privileged? Will we insist none but the privileged be allowed to come? Is this where we are headed? Is this where -- to some extent -- we are already at?
  I long for the return of the day when we put rights ahead of privilege. I so think it better to practice freedom the way it was practiced back when freedoms were handed out -- and the right to immigrate was smack dab in the middle of those rights. If we had the thinking of those back in 1776, immigration would be a right, not a privilege. Privilege was something for the aristocrats of England, and the colonists fled to get away from it.

Back in the day,

freedom was a location,

and that location was America, 

and people were free to locate here.

The Position of the Church is Reasoned and Reasonable

I find the stand of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Utah's Proposition 2 to be very reasoned and reasonable. I agree with it. I believe there might be medical benefits to marijuana, but I look at what has happened in other states, and I see their legislation of "medical" marijuana has but opened the doors for recreational use. If you go see a doctor for pain, he cannot measure it with a pain-o-meter. There is no such instrument. You tell him you are in pain and that is the end of it. He accepts what you say. Then, you get to select the pain killer. So, if a state puts marijuana on the list, it's yours. Some might feel marijuana is not harmful, so what is the big deal, anyway? But, I am among those who do not feel that way. I feel marijuana is harmful. If we are going to legalize medical marijuana, we need a bill that does not sweep recreational marijuana right along with it.

   The limits of freedom are the limits of love

   If you love someone, you give. You give them the right to speak freely, the right to worship, the right to move about. 
  Hatred takes the opposite course. It seeks to take away the course of action from others. It takes things they are doing that really do no harm, and tells the people, "No, you cannot do that."
   Now, love can also take actions away from people. If a parent loves a child, it teaches the child not to touch a hot stove, not to play in traffic, and not to smoke and take drugs.
   Love will open doors for the person it loves. It will consider the action in question and not be quick to call it a harmful action. If the person is wanting to scale a treacherous cliff, while it will consider the danger, it will often yield to the person's love of the quest.
  Hatred will take the opposite stand. If a person wants to pursue an acting career, hatred will grasp for reasons why that would be wrong. It might declare the wickedness of Hollywood, when the real reason for not wanting the person to become an actor, is hatred and not wanting the person to succeed.
   Hatred puts obstacles in the way of success. Love clears them away.
   Now is the point at which this post becomes political. Consider immigration and the NFL flag controversy. Which emotion is ruling us when we limit their freedom to come to America, or their right to protest by kneeling? 
  Do we feel love for the immigrant so much that we do not want to see him do harm to others by taking advantage of our welfare systems? Or, is that hatred we are feeling? Do we have warm feelings toward the immigrant, or cold feelings?
   What of the NFL player? Do we love him so much we do not want to see him sully himself? Don't be too quick to dismiss it as that you love the person, but hate the sin; Do we hate the "sin" so much that we hate the person, as well?
   The limits of freedom, are the limits of love. If love would allow the action, then hatred should not take it away. If love looks an immigrant, and can see no real harm in his (or her) being here, then let the immigrant stay. Let not hatred step in to scold justice. There are many who have come to America who are doing no harm at all. They are not abusing our welfare system, they are working hard, and they are not committing crime. We stop them, though, because we say they are breaking the law. We insist on a punishment, sending them back. I would only suggest that if a law is not just, punishment for breaking it is not always worthy. Judge for yourself, is it love or hatred that insists on punishment at such a moment? Love is the forgiving, compassionate emotion, while hatred is full of fault-finding and condemnation.
    Judge those who kneel for the National Anthem the same way. Are we led by the spirit of fault-finding? Are we condemning them when we don't need to condemn? Is a flag something that must be saluted regardless of the actions of the nation? Or, are there some actions you are justified in not saluting.
   Charity can be seeing others in their best light. If we are men and women of love, can we not see the kneelers in a good light? Let our love of them allow them their freedom.
  If the freedoms of America are to be protected, they must be protected by love. If we let the emotion of hatred govern what freedoms we allow, we will find ourselves stripping them away.

Freedom to Move About is One of the Most Basic of Freedoms

   Freedom of movement is one of the most basic of freedoms. In most any society -- even those with kings and queens -- subjects were free to move from one location to another within the country, as well as to move in and out of that country.
   Socialistic countries might rob their people of the right to move around, but that is the exception.
   With the movement, comes the job. When individuals move from one location to another, they take new jobs in their new lands. And, by the same token, when socialistic countries deprive them of a moving around, it is often because they are assigning them to work at a designated location.
   Whatever you say about the immigration policies of America -- whether you like them or not -- you must acknowledge they limit some freedom of movement. People are still free to move about in the country. They are still free to leave the country. But, they are restricted entry; Their freedom to move into America has been limited.
   Indeed, so it is with most every nation in the world, these days. While freedom of movement from country to country was once pretty much universal, now it is the restrictions on moving into a country that are universal.

Back in the day, freedom was a location,
and that location was America,
and everyone was free to locate here.

Should There Yet be Public Outrage?

   I find myself wondering if instead of fading, the family separation story shouldn't have gotten bigger.
   As in, what is this about how some were deported before they could be reunited? Is it fair to ask if they were sent packing in hopes that they would no longer count among those being detained who needed to be reunited? Was the Trump Administration trying to escape its responsibility to reunite them? Was it trying to escape accountability?
   And, of those deported, did some decide to go of their own accord? Why would they do that? Was it in anger and disappointment with the U.S.? Did they realize their hopes were futile -- that most refugee applications are denied and theirs would be, as well? Was that argument pitched by federal authorities in hopes of dissuading them from staying?
   Yes, shouldn't this story of family separation have gotten bigger? And, there is another angle that might persuade you it should be bigger. Shouldn't it have gotten bigger,  as in what is this about some parents signing statements renouncing their right to be reunited with their children -- saying they don't want to be reunited? There is word they were forced to sign the statements, and did so under duress. Isn't that scandal? Yes, we must also wonder if they were not the true parents of the children, but were just using them to get across the border, and therefore didn't care to be reunited. But if, rather than that, they signed under duress to not be reunited with their children, isn't that as big as the original story of family separations?
   Most of the roughly 500 who have not been reunited fall in the already-deported category. But, if you have a CIA and an FBI good at tracking people down, couldn't we have located them by now? A friend points out that they might have been using false identities when they came to the U.S., making it difficult to track them down. I don't know. Could that be the case?
   So, part of me wonders if there should not be more public outrage. It has been just more than two months since Trump signed the executive order ending the family separations. It has been just less than two months since the judge ordered them to be reunited within thirty days. Time is up, and time is up twice. Why have they not been reunited? Why not at least stories explaining why there's a hold up?
   Were is the public's sense of outrage? If we were upset with the family separations in June, why no longer? Five-hundred children still separated from their parents two months after the courts ordered them to be reunited? I see reason for more mass protests. Where are they? If the Trump Administration can show us why they haven't been reunited -- if there is just and good cause -- then, don't protest. But, if there is not good reason, we should take to the streets and demand better treatment of those coming to America expecting at least fairness and justice.
    Whether we deport them or not, let us at least treat them right.

Add This to the List of Songs About Immigration

    Add this to the list of immigrant songs: "It Never Rains in California," by Albert Hammond. It is his immigration story, telling of his boarding a westbound 747 to make it in Hollywood as a musician. I believe he immigrated from Gibraltar, as that is where he is from. I've listened to and sang this song a thousand times, but never noticed the immigration angle until tonight I was listening to it, and noticed the line, "All that talk of opportunity . . . rang true, sure rang true."
   Alas, I still don't like the line in the song that says, "The girls only warn ya."

Immigration is a Privilege, Not a Right?

  I see a post saying, "Immigration is a privilege, not a right," and, as I consider on it, I think, What an odd thought that is.
 What if the early immigrants to America -- those that built this into the 13 colonies -- had been told that? Think it would have stopped any of them? Or would they have looked at you like, "Say what?" thinking it a totally silly thing to suggest?
  What of the immigrants who came here in the late 1700s and early 1800s? What if they had been told they had no right to come? What a concept this would have been to them. Back then, coming to America was what freedom was all about. Of course they had the right to come.
   Immigration is a privilege, not a right? It is a concept that has crept into our thinking, but we have not always felt this way. It wasn't our rule and it was far from common thought when America was founded.
   I think it better to practice freedoms the way they were practiced back when they were handed out, rather than in this age when we no longer value some of them.

Was this Name Reserved through all these Centuries?

   Try an experiment: Google on "Church of Jesus Christ." Okay, since the web calls up local listings, to a large extent, that is one reason it calls up the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I believe it would also be the common listing if you lived in New York. Also, look at the wikipedia entry. It lists different organizations using "Church of Jesus Christ" and while there are other entries, there is no other entry of a large church. It is as if the Lord reserved this name for His church.
   Yes, there is a Church of Christ that is a larger group, but it remains that Church of Jesus Christ -- with both parts of the name -- is largely the domain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. No other notable organization in the world uses this name. Isn't that odd? It would seem that if you were going to name a church that followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, then the use of the Savior's full name would be found in a number of denominations. But, it isn't. Nor does it appear the name had been used much before Joseph Smith restored the gospel. It is as if the name were reserved through all the centuries for this, the Lord's church in the end of times.

Inland Port Might Spark Manufacturing Industry in Utah

 This could be a wonderful thing for Salt Lake City and for Utah. The state has created what it calls an inland port authority. The idea is to take the international airport, and fly imports in, and exports out. (As well as to transport them to seaports and other locations via truck and rail.) The idea is to place Salt Lake City in the circle of trade centers such as we have in Los Angeles.
  Which is a fine enough idea in and of itself, but here's where it becomes a great idea: If you have open land around a major trade port, you have the lead rope to attract manufacturers. There's all that land stretching west from the airport yet to be developed. It sits right next to our proposed airport port. Ease and convenience is a selling point. If they will be able to easily place their manufactured products on the international market, large corporate manufacturers might be drawn to Salt Lake City. Think of it: They locate in places such as Los Angeles partly due to Los Angeles having sea ports to transport their goods across the ocean. If they have an air port, they might be lured to locate here.
   There is a lot I do not know about all this, that I should be commenting on it. I do not know if most manufactured goods are too heavy, and if some are too large and bulky, to go by air. Do we transport them in the slower, ocean fashion because they are too large for a cargo plane to carry? I would guess some things are never transported by air -- automobiles, for example.
  What of the price of fuel? Is the cost of fuel for an airplane such that it makes ocean freight more practical?
 

A Watergate, Watershed, and Waterloo Moment

    Judging from comments and the commentaries, I wonder if our (the public's) perception of whether Trump has committed a high crime changed yesterday. I wonder if we now realize there is no way out -- he will be indicted.

 Was yesterday a Watergate, a watershed, and a Waterloo moment? I put on a song by Abba and listen to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWfK4OrTg4c

We've heard it said that you should not mix politics and religion. But, I'm thinking what they really meant to say, is that you should not mix politics and the NFL.

Given that the NFL is a religion to some, and that most of the games are played on Sunday, I guess the there's not too much difference in the two thoughts, anyway. (Just kidding, just kidding, just kidding.) 

Love is 

the excitement for others, 

and the appreciation of the preciousness 
in them.

  With the wind, bends the willow

And with the storm, falls the tree

  So to Him who commands the lightning

Let us fall on bended knee

The wise man is not the one who won't consider things, nor the one who won't yield to reason.

If the answer is love, there are no questions

We live in America. 
Employment does not come 
with a gag order. 

   For those who say the NFL players should not kneel during the flag ceremony because they are on someone else's dime, I would suggest that employment does not come with a buyout of our constitutional rights.
   If their time protesting took away from their time doing their job, that would be different. Employers can require you to do your job, as opposed to doing other things. But, the NFL players are not taking a single minute away from their jobs. 
  If the players were protesting against their employers, that, too, would be different. Employers should not be required to keep in their employ those who speak negatively of them. Nor should they be required to let those protesting against them do so on their property. But that falls way outside what the NFL players are doing.
   If you respect your players, give them the right to have their political opinions. Give them the right to petition for a redress of their grievances, even as the First Amendment gives them that right.  

The National Anthem becomes the Most Suitable Time of all

   It is said that when the National Anthem is played at NFL football games, that is not the time and place to protest.
   But, hold on. I'm not sure but what a careful consideration doesn't suggest otherwise.
   "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
   The NFL flag protest fits in there.  The players are petitioning government for a redress of grievances. Bless those of us who stand and salute when the National Anthem is played, but those who kneel are protected by the First Amendment -- or should be. They are protesting their grievances, asking the government not to wrongly assault or imprison black people. Their protest is -- in accordance with the First Amendment -- peaceful.
   Now, what of their timing? What of the fact they choose to protest during the National Anthem and while the flag is on display? 
   Stop, if you will, to consider that both the flag and the anthem represent the U.S and its government. If you want to address the government, choosing to address the images of that government is one way of going about it.
   If a person had a beef with a neighbor, and the neighbor walked into the room, it would be a natural time to discuss the beef with the neighbor. 
   Even so, when the symbols and images of a government come on display, then it becomes a natural time to raise your voice if you have grievances against that government represented by those symbols and images.  
  So, though we speak of how the National Anthem is not the time and place, perhaps it it. Perhaps it is the most natural and suitable time of all.
  If the Constitution give us the right "to petition the Government," that means that when the government walks into the room, so to speak, we have the right of petitioning it with our grievances.
   The performing of the National Anthem becomes the most  natural time to protest.
   Maybe we shouldn't impose fines when players protest, for the Constitution has their back. If we don't want to deprive them of their Constitutional right, we should let them petition government for a redress of their grievances at that moment in which it is natural to petition that government for a redress of grievances.

Who are We to Judge the NFL Take-a-Knee Protesters?

   Another thought on the video I saw suggesting the NFL flag protesters do what they do just for attention while the cameras are rolling. They aren't sincere, goes the argument.
   I reply on Facebook to one such person:
   "Oh, Angie, forgive, but who are we to say another person is insincere? Judging them falsely is wrong. To assign to them a motive they do not have is wrong. Do we suppose we are clairvoyant and have some kind of power to get in and read their minds to know how they feel and whether they are sincere? They do what they do (kneel) even though it jeopardizes them with the person paying their paycheck. Their job is on the line here and they do it anyway. I look at them and do not see the slightest sign they are insincere. They believe what they believe and we should grant them that. Supposing to know the motive of someone, and to assign motive to them without authentic reason for doing so, is a fallacy against logic. It is also a straw man fallacy, in that you are attacking a position the other person really doesn't have. You pick out of the air a false assumption of what they believe and why they are doing something, and then you attack it. It is arguing made easy when you can make things up as to what another person believes and then attack those things."

Trump was willing to Work with the Russians to Defeat His Foe

 Remember, if you will, Donald Trump publicly calling on the Russians to find Hillary Clinton's missing emails.  Here's an assessment of that act from John Brennan, the director of the CIA under Obama whose security clearance was revoked by President Trump:
  "By issuing such a statement, Mr. Trump was not only encouraging a foreign nation to collect intelligence against a United States citizen, but also openly authorizing his followers to work with our primary global adversary against his political opponent."
   Trump supporters ask his detractors to cite any evidence of collusion. Trump, himself, regularly denies any collusion.
   How about that act in July 2016, when he called on help from the Russians? Whether it was illegal or not, and regardless whether it fits under the roof of collusion or not, it certainly was an appeal for help from the Russian intelligence community, and a show that he was willing to work arm-in-arm with the branch of the Russian government working to undermine our elections.

A Rant Against Freedom of Speech?

Someone posts on the NFL flag controversy, arguing against taking a knee, and I reply:

A five-minute rant against freedom of speech? I appreciate Graham Allen expressing his view, and his video is fun to watch. Bless him for this thoughts. But, what's he doing? He's trying to shut someone up. A few NFL players choose to express their their belief, and he gets all bent out of shape about it, and tells them, in essence, "Just shut up and play football. That's all we want from you. You are to be seen and not to be heard." What is Graham Allen ranting against? Against the right of someone at an NFL game expressing their view that government is oppressing them.

I do not Agree

   I do not agree with those who suggest that if you didn't vote, you have no right to complain. The right to vote, is the right to not vote.

With the wind, bends the willow, 
and with the storm, falls the tree

It does not matter how right you are, or how good you are, or even how perfect you are, if the winds blow hard enough, they will take you down. 

If You Want Tourism, Zone for it

   It makes sense that if you don't zone for certain activities, you will not have as much of them. Imagine a city not leaving room for commercial development, but instead zoning all for agricultural and residential uses.
   I imagine, if that is what they want, that is what they will get.
   So, why don't we have a zoning for tourism and conventions? You might argue that those uses are allowed in other zones, but aren't we going to be more likely to attract tourism and conventions if we designate a spot just for them?
   And, if we are to pick the best spot for tourism and conventions, wouldn't it be next to the airport? And within reach of an interstate?
   Wouldn't it?
   Salt Lake City is in an enviable position. It has an airport with large amounts of undeveloped land around it, so it is in position to capitalize on that land for tourism and conventions. We should be pleased and grateful that the land stretching west from the airport hasn't been developed in all these years since Brigham Young arrived here. By the turn of good fortune, it remains open to what is probably its highest and greatest use.

Does Russia have Us Acting like Children, Tossing Toys at Each Other?

   This is speculative, but I wonder if someone is stoking the embers of hatred in the United States.
   More bluntly, are we dupes of the Russians to hate each other so much?
  I read how a 1994 survey by the Pew Research Center showed 16 percent of Democrats had a very unfavorable opinion of Republicans, compared to 38 percent more recently. And, only 17 percent of Republicans had a very unfavorable view of Democrats, compared to 43 percent more recently.
   Toward the end of his Sunday column, Deseret News columnist Boyd Matheson suggests if there is one area Russia meddling is succeeding in, it is in sowing discord. I'm not sure how you interpret that, other than to say Russia is dividing us.

If a Church is True, it Bears the Fruits of a Church that is True

   If the church would be true, it must bear the fruits of a church that is true, both in its teachings and in how it conducts itself.
   I think of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and how it reaches out to the LGBT community, and I think of how Christ, when they brought to him one who had been caught in adultery, saying, "Let him who has no sin cast the first stone."
   I think of how the church is ensuring that women are being given large roles. It is not for me to say what might happen, but I notice they are not being given the priesthood, itself, and I wonder if that is not equal to how it was in the ancient days of the church. There were prophetesses, but did they hold the priesthood?
   I think of how Blacks are being included, and of how the church at the time of the Christ was but for the House of Israel, but then was expanded to all, as Peter had the vision in which he was told, "What God hath made clean, that call not thou common."
   I think of the Church confessing that the Mountain Meadow Massacre was wrong. If you are of the Lord, you confess your wrongs, and seek to help those you have wronged.
   There are other examples. But, these are among the things the Church of Jesus Christ is doing that bear a likeness to how I think Christ would like His church to behave.

Freedom from suffering is freedom

When we think of freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms come to mind. But, freedom from suffering has perhaps just as much value. If you are free from suffering, you are free. You might be free to speak what you will, and free to worship as you will, and free to tote a gun around, but if you suffer, you are not free. 

There is a saying, "If you've got your health, you've got everything." That saying perhaps points out how much we value freedom from suffering.

A good friend points out that whereas gun shops once were geared toward hunting, many are now dominated by assault weapons and guns suitable for killing. 

'The America We Know and Love doesn't Exist Anymore'

 Laura Ingraham has come under attack for what many considered a racist comment.
 "In some parts of the country, it does seem like the America we know and love doesn't exist anymore," she said. "Massive demographic changes have been foisted on the American people, and they are changes that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don't like." 
   How soon in life people get married, and how many live together without getting married are among the demographic changes in America. But, so is race. How many are Hispanic is one of the demographic changes. 
   Although it might seem she was referring to a greater proportion of Hispanics, Ingraham on Thursday said, "I made explicitly clear that my commentary had nothing to do with race or ethnicity. But rather a shared goal of keeping America safe and her citizens safe and prosperous."
   If Ingraham was referring to an up shift in the Latino population, and is suggesting Latinos are making America unsafe and less prosperous, isn't she only diving deeper into trouble? Does her clarification only pile more racism on the original racism?  
   If we go back to her quote, and finish it, we find that she wasn't speaking of such things as more people living together outside marriage.
   "From Virginia to California," she said, "we see stark examples of how radically in some ways the country has changed. Now, much of this is related to both illegal, and in some cases, legal immigration that, of course, progressives love."
    It would seem that what Ingraham is saying is that it is immigration that is bringing the demographic changes, and, therefore, it is not the Latinos, themselves, who are inclined to make America unsafe and less prosperous, but just those Latinos who move in from other countries. 
   Or, maybe she is saying that those coming from outside our country and moving in have led us to be less safe and prosperous. The influx is reflected in the increase of Latinos simply because Latinos are a dominant part of the immigration, therefore, in this case, making it possible to spot the change immigration is having in America. But, if the immigrants were Caucasian, it would not be so easy to spot the change because the immigrants would be just like the rest, and therefore wouldn't show up as a change in democraphics. Is that what Ingraham is saying? I do not know. 
   Can we say, if that is what she meant, then it wasn't a racist comment?

Deseret News again Rejects My Comment

My online comments to the Deseret News are continually rejected. Time after time, I have not saved them (copied them), because I did not imagine they would be rejected. Today, I copy-saved my comment before submitting it, even though I again did not suppose it would be rejected. Well, it is on hold. Here's the comment. It is to a story on Melania Trump's parents getting their citizenship. What think ye? Is it unfit for publication? I did misspell the word "possesses," but other than that, I think the comment okay.

"Amalija posseses a Jackie Kennedy look. 

"We should not be too quick to criticize President Trump. He might not have even endorsed his parents-in-law using the route to citizenship that they did. We don't know.

"The shocker in the story is that chain migration accounts for half of the immigration -- that legal immigration would be cut in half if we cut out chain migration. So, to those who say they aren't against immigration, just illegal immigration, if you favor ending chain migration, you are against half the legal migration.

"I'm not sure such things as legal status should be protected by privacy laws. Aren't such things as marriage licenses public records? Why, then, should this be protected? We, as citizens, should have the right to know, especially as immigration is a public issue and a public matter

-- John Jackson (aka Immifriend)"

Note (added 8/11/18) Bless the Deseret News. I rewrote the comment, leaving out the part about marriage licenses being public records, and they published it. Marriage licenses are not public in Utah for what, 75 years? I'm not sure about other states, though, and wonder if they are not still public record in some states. And, bless the Deseret News whether they post by comments, or not. It is a wonderful paper and it is wonderful of them to offer online commenting.

 The freedom to choose your dreams, and the power to fulfill them are much the essence of happiness

  The freedom to achieve, the freedom to dream, the freedom to do something with your life, and the freedom to use your talents -- these things combine to form one of the most basic of of freedoms: the freedom to pursue your heart's desire. Place this freedom next to those freedoms of which we speak so often --  the freedoms of worship and free speech, and the right to bear arms.
  I think of athletes behind the Iron Curtain, and how they have been invited to be athletes for the state. I think of how Russia and the Soviet Union have had so much success in the Olympics -- which means they have provided so many athletes the thrill of achieving something with their lives.
   I think that is a portion of freedom.
   I also think, though, of the athletes who defected from the Soviet Union, and Cuba, and other countries. The freedom to become star athletes was not enough for them.
   The freedom to choose your dreams, and the power to fulfill them are much the essence of happiness. If a person is allowed to become a star in one thing, but is suppressed in others, he may feel the balance of freedom is not his.

Freedom is not so much in what you can and cannot do, but in finding peace and tranquility in what you do do. 

A Newscast Called The Flash

I will tell you where to I would like news coverage to evolve. Instead of going back to Joe Friday's "Just the facts, Ma'am" approach from our day I would like to see news personalities more freely insert their observations . . . while still striving for objectivity. I would like the newscasters be open about their biases, for everybody has them, so why not be frank and forthcoming about them? I would like news coverage that not only gives both sides of the story, but gives both sides of what the other media are saying, quoting Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow most every newscast. What if we had a station that not only covered the news, but brought all the coverage together, quoting everything from the Drudge Report to the Palmer Report -- all the while inserting comments, weighing and breaking down what those media were saying?

Sometimes, to Catch a Criminal, You have to Chase Him Down

  Sometimes, to catch a criminal, you have to chase him.
  So, what of those who might be voting illegally? If, for example, there are undocumented immigrants who are voting, what are we doing to catch them?
  Last night, I wrote about how assuring everyone required to get an ID to vote, should be encouraged to get that ID -- even to the point we go their homes to issue it to them. Why? Because if you don't make sure they vote, their spot opens to someone to come in and vote on their behalf -- it opens up that spot to fraudulent voting. So, you want as many as possible of your registered voters to obtain those IDs and to vote. Every unfilled spot is a spot open to voter fraud.
  As soon as I wrote the piece, it occurred to me that visiting their homes to help them get their IDs is a way to catch those who are voting fraudulently. If they don't come in to get the ID, it might be because they are illegal voters, and know it -- and know if they are required to show the records that make them eligible, they won't be able to, and they will be caught.
  So, chase them down. Go to their homes. Offer to help them get the picture ID. Make it so convenient that if they are anxious to have it, they might let you in before they realize they are only getting themselves in trouble.
  Some of them, though, are going to have the necessary records -- only they will be forged records. So, whether they come in or whether you go to their homes, you should be trained in detecting and unveiling those with forged documents if you are to be an election official.
   And, the whole system depends on when you require the picture ID. Is it when they register? Or is it when they vote? Or both? And, if it is when they vote, what of vote-by-mail? Is it to be discontinued, or do you allow them to mail a photo copy of their ID?
   If you require the ID to register, then once you pass the ID mandate, everyone has to come in and re-register. And, those who don't? They are the ones you chase down to their homes.
   If you don't require them to show their ID until they vote, then you don't have as ready of a list of those who don't have ID and need them. It would make the task harder. 

If You are Sincere about Why You Want IDs, Help Them

   Yes, requiring an ID might reduce fraudulent voting. But, if you are really interesting in reducing fraudulent voting, you want all your eligible voters to actually show up and vote.
   If they don't, they leave their spot open for someone to come in, impersonate them, and vote in their stead.
   So, it becomes to your advantage not only to require ID, but to ensure that those who do qualify for the ID, actually get that ID.
   And use it.
   The other day, I suggested that if election officials are going to require ID, they should go out of their way to make sure the person needing the ID, is given the ID -- even going to their homes to check their records, ensure they are eligible, take their pictures, and issue them the IDs.
My thought was, voting is a right. So, you do everything you can to ensure you are not depriving them of that right. My thought was, it does no real harm to make the home visit. Some would suggest it would be a logistical nightmare to go to their homes. I think not. You simply pack the machinery in your car, and go out and make the visit. How hard is that?
   After posting my thoughts, I realized how this would be more than just a nice gesture to help this collection of voters. It would also help provide security for the election system. You want every registered voter to vote. Those people who don't vote leave open their spot for a criminal to come along and vote in their stead.
   So, if you are really after cutting down on voter fraud -- if that is sincerely what you are after in calling for voters to be IDd -- then go out of your way to ensure that everyone on your voter rolls who qualifies to vote, does vote. And, that includes getting them IDs.

Freedom is not so much in what you can and cannot do, but in finding peace and tranquility 

in what you do do

Drive Right to Their Homes and Issue Them Voter IDs

   Require everyone to have ID to vote? My take on all this is, Go ahead and require them to have ID, but then provide it to them. Have election workers drive right to their homes and make house visits, if necessary. Check their records, take their pictures, and issue them voter IDs, right during the visit.
   Call them in advance, of course, and ask them to have their paperwork ready, and ask them if they want such a visit.
   And, if they don't have proof of citizenship? Help them. Help them order a birth certificate, if that's what it takes.

   You think that is a little too much? Way too much? Oh, forgive, but I do not. I think you want to go out of your way to ensure you don't deprive anyone of the right to vote. My thought is, Don't let it bother you that you are making it "too easy" for them, or that if they want the ID, they should come and get it. Instead of arguing back and forth about why people do not make the effort to get their IDs, just go give them to them. What is the big harm done, if you travel out and give them the card? Voting is a right. Go out of your way to make sure you don't deprive them of that right.

The man is freest who has the biggest gun

   Kings and tyrants are free. Their subjects are not, but they are. Even so, he who packs the biggest weapon is freest to do what he will. If he forces his way, he gets his way, and he is free to do whatever he wants. In this manner of speaking, freedom is the product of force.
   Now, I do not actually believe this -- that the man is freest who has the biggest gun. With the abuse of freedom comes the chains of that abuse. Kings and tyrants are not free if they do not have the love of their subjects. They are not free if they are plagued by the guilt of their deeds. Real freedom lies in being free from guilt, in having peace of mind, in feeling the love of those surrounding you.

Delusion can be the pathway to brilliance

   Brilliance and delusion are brothers. The brilliant person is brilliant because he sees all the possibilities. Even so, a delusional person is delusional because he sees the possibilities. The difference is in the possibilities they consider. The brilliant person is able to select the real and viable possibilities, while the delusional accepts possibilities which are not well-founded.
   Perhaps to some degree, brilliance and delusion are great minds walking in opposite directions, for it takes a great mind to consider the possibilities in the first place. 
   And, it can be said that many of the ideas of the brilliant man end up being delusional. Thomas Edison said he failed a 1,000 times before inventing the light bulb. What is a delusion but an idea that is wrong? In some ways -- if we let go of our delusions when they end up being just that -- delusions are the pathway to brilliance.   

   What if there were such a thing 

as benevolent capitalism?

   
   Oh, I believe there actually is. Jon Huntsman comes to mind as a practitioner. But, what if there were more of this? What if society were dominated by those who sought not riches, but to do good with their riches? What if there were a few millionaires who gave away their money as fast as they made it?
   What if there were those who sought not to make a dollar on the backs of cheap labor, but to pay so well that they, themselves, barely made a dime? Can you imagine a business person who would pay his laborers better than himself? Who made, say, but $30,000 a year while each of his employees made twice that? 
   Does such a person exist? That goes beyond Jon Huntsman and enters a realm of which we just don't hear of.