In Parenting Lies the Key to Solving the Nation's Problems

   If the problems of this nation are to be solved, they must be solved by the parents. Politicians may solve some problems. Churches might solve some problems. Social workers might solve some problems.
  But, a lot of the problems are there because incorrect teaching has occurred, or better teaching needs to be done. Police officers being killed is one of the problems of our day. If people were taught not to attack police, there would be fewer officers killed. Police killing people because they are black? If parents did not pass along bigotry to their children, the children would be more likely to grow up to be police officers who were not bigots. Climate change? Parents pass along the doubt of climate change to their children. If they didn't, the children would grow up and be more likely to heed the warnings and reduce man-made greenhouse gases.
   You could go down the list, finding problem after problem where teaching is core to ending the problem. I realize children do not always grow up as they are taught, but parenting remains one of the most influential -- maybe the most influential -- ways of teaching, of persuading, and of molding people into what they become.

Perhaps Feinstein didn't do Such a Wrongful Thing

   Much has been made of Dianne Feinstein's not releasing the information in a time frame acceptable to the Republicans. What she did was very wrong, they say. Some might even call it nefarious.
   Now, stop and think this through. What would have happened if she had came forth, saying, I've learned Kavanaugh assaulted someone back in high school, but I can't reveal who was assaulted or who is telling me this.
   As is, Republicans are howling that it is a smear campaign. Imagine how much more they would have been howling if Feinstein had released the information without saying who was making the accusation.
   But, could Feinstein have at least turned the information over to the FBI? I wonder. The FBI would have wanted to know who was making the charge, and who had supposedly been assaulted in order to be able to investigate the charge. Even if you did give the FBI the names of others at the party, so investigators did have enough information to mount an investigation, when the investigation came back, it would reveal Dr. Ford. If Ford wanted wanted to remain anonymous, an investigation would obviously dash that.
   So, Christine Blasey Ford was left to consider whether she would go public -- and when. To her, the deadline would be that she needed to do it before the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing. That would be her deadline. That would be the date before which she would need to act.
   So, she was prodded into revealing herself when people began to find out who she was. That, too, happened just before the hearing. So, there are two things that make just before the hearing the natural time to go public: One, if you are going to do it, it needs to be done in time so it can be included in the hearing. And, two, at the moment you are going to be exposed, that is a natural time for going public, for you realize your cover has been blown.
   Some have suggested whoever leaked the information did a disservice to Ford. If they hadn't leaked the information, Ford would have been saved. She wouldn't have had to come forward. She would have been saved all the trauma she has been put through. Or, are they saying the leak was a bad thing, regardless what it did to Ford? Are they saying the leak was bad because it damaged Kavanaugh, and, therefore, it was evil? At any rate, they think the leak was wrong.
   Was it? We don't know if Ford would have come forward without the leak. If this is a matter of such importance that it should be considered before Kavanaugh is seated, don't you want it to come forth?
   Perhaps we should consider that whoever leaked the information did justice a favor. You cannot just yell, "Leak! leak! leak! -- that is wrong! You should not be leaking things!" Sometimes leaks are not nefarious things, but, rather, they lead to the truth.

Are Truth and Falsehood to be Separated with such Shallowness?

   Is truth to be divided by whether you are a Democrat or Republican? A great drama is playing out in our country, Christine Blasey Ford asserting she was sexually assaulted by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
   But, the subplot might contain the more astounding story. All across our land, people are dividing into two camps: those who believe Dr. Ford and those who believe Judge Kavanaugh. Strangely, those in Ford's camp tend to be Democrats, and those in Kavanaugh's for the large part are Republicans.
   Now, tell me how political affiliations has anything to do with whether someone was sexually assaulted. She was either assaulted or she wasn't. Truth cannot be divided by whether someone is Democrat or Republican. It doesn't matter if you as the listener are a Democrat, and therefore believe Ford, or if you as a listener are a Republican and therefore believe Kavanaugh.
   Truth is is not reliant on party politics. It and falsehood cannot be separated in such a shallow way. We unveil ourselves as a nation of bigots and fools for trying to divide the truth this way.
   We have been shown to be a nation of fools, at least on this matter. Somewhere, a devil is laughing for what he has created.

This may not Weigh Well on Hatch's Legacy

   Much is good about Senator Hatch, but this moment in history is not among them. Unfortunately for him, the Brett Kavanaugh hearing might define his legacy as much as anything -- and not in a good way.
   Bless him, but I would have questions of him.
   Have you (along with other of our leaders) set to "plow right through"? And, what if what Christine Blasey Ford is saying is the truth? Does that mean you are going to "plow right through" the truth?
   What happened at the hearing was "a national disgrace," you say? Senator, what happened was someone accused Kavanaugh of a sexual attack, and others asked him questions such as, Are you afraid an FBI investigation would show you are lying? to which you over the microphone were heard to utter, "Gee whiz." The question on why there is no FBI investigation is a valid one. The question is, is it part of what you were referring to when you said the way Kavanaugh was being treated was "a national disgrace"?
   How so, Senator? If Dr. Ford truly was assaulted, no, it is not a national disgrace for her to say so. Nor is it a national disgrace for your fellow senators to wonder why there is no FBI investigation.
   And, just why is there no FBI investigation? Why did you say to all those who are calling for an investigation, then by all that is holy, they should ask their questions right there and then while they had Kavanaugh before them? It was as if you were saying, Forget your FBI investigation. You have your chance right now. Anything that needs to be taken care of can be taken care of right here and now.
   And, therein touches the problem. Therein lies the reason this hearing might define Hatch's legacy. If the committee votes in favor of Kavanaugh on Friday -- just one day after the hearing in which he came out looking badly -- then it will be seen that the committee had already made up its mind. It was going to have a perfunctory hearing, but whatever happened in that hearing was not going to be allowed to derail the nomination.
  The hearing was but for show. The process was but for show. You even brought in a woman expert to ask questions for you -- to sidestep the appearance that a committee composed only of men was grilling and diminishing a female for saying she was assaulted. So, bringing in a female questioner -- that, too, was for show.
   You make a mockery of the system when you carry it out just for show, with no intention of having it be the basis for whether you endorse the nominee. "Plow right through"? This does not speak to the hope that you were there to find the truth and to be fair. It has been said the hearing was not a court of law. Well, it certainly shouldn't be compared to a real American court of law, what with you as judges deciding the verdict before the case was even heard, and refusing to have an investigation before the case was heard, and refusing to bring in all the witnesses so they could testify.
   Is that not a sham? Is that not a farce? This is not the way American justice was made. Instead, it bears resemblance to how a dictatorship might function while pawning itself off as a democracy. There, they have an election, but the election is fixed; It is meaningless.
   Is this so different? You have a hearing, but the hearing means nothing. Justice mean nothing. You subvert the American system with tactics better suited for Russia or Iran.
   If the committee votes to endorse Kavanaugh on Friday, and then the full Senate approves the nomination quickly, instead of calling to hear from the other witnesses first, and if there is no FBI investigation, it is possible there will be a public backlash. If so, history might remember Hatch for his lead role in "plowing right through" and subverting justice. 

(Note: This blog was written after reading a Deseret News article.)

The Flood has become too Great for the Farce to be Carried Out

   I think of the children being separated from the parents, and how we were embarrassed as a nation.
   Another such moment might be on us. If the Senate goes through with but a perfunctory hearing tomorrow, then approves Brett Kavanaugh the next day -- this, too, will stain our good name as a nation.
   We believe in fair play and honestly, don't we? We believe in a process involving justice, don't we? We see it not as our nation, but a communistic nation or a dictatorial nation that would shove through a nomination with no regard for anything but whether the candidate belongs to the ruling faction. We have seen this in other countries. They put themselves forth as democracies, but their elections are fixed and the ruling powers rule. They select who they want to fill their government. If they were to have processes for court appointments, those processes would, likewise, be a charade.
   Where is the investigation? All the charges against Kavanaugh, and no investigation? You pretend to vet this candidate, and an investigation is perhaps the most integral part of vetting, and yet you refuse to call on the FBI to investigate? This is a sham to justice.
   There are now a number of people questioning the honesty of Kavanaugh. If our leaders hold but a perfunctory hearing, if they go through the motions with no real intention of weighing the accusations . . . is this even America? If they say they are going to "plow right through," then they have no regard for making the process meaningful. How does this reflect on what we have become as a nation?
   We are borrowing from the practices of nations that suppose to be democratic, that set up processes for show with no intent of actually letting those processes be carried out fairly, and honestly, and meaningfully.
   No, I do not believe Kavanaugh will be confirmed Friday. While our nation has fallen so much that it threatened to go down this path, the flood of charges has become too great for the perpetrators of this farce to actually carry it out.

I Would Vote Against Clarence Thomas

   If you could take me back to the Clarence Thomas hearings, and have me as a senator, I would vote against him.
   And, it would be as much for what he allegedly did to Angela Wright, as it would be for how he treated Anita Hill. Testimony was, he made advances on her, and when she rejected him, he fired her. Using your position to fire someone for rejecting your sexual does not reflect the character I think should exist on the Supreme Court.
   I also think about Hill's allegations. I believe them. I wonder whether they are serious enough that I would vote against the nomination. I have just said I believe Hill, so, if for no other reason, I would perhaps vote against Thomas because he denied the accusations so completely.
 

Peace Lies in Accepting Truth

   We either look for truth, or we run from it.
   Perhaps there are those who relish the truth so much, they even enjoy finding they are wrong, for there is excitement for them in learning, in finding the truth.
   Okay, I wonder if such a soul exists. It would be a rarity -- someone who glories so much in learning and in discovering truth, that they get excited in that discovery, even when it means they are wrong.
   As I think on it more, perhaps there is an element of such a person in us. But, it is dampened every time we publicly express our opinion. There are two reasons for this: (1) We convince ourselves. There is no opinion that influences us more than does our own. Once an opinion is out of our mouth, we usually do not go back on it. Our way has been set. (2) No one likes being wrong, and they especially do not like others knowing they are wrong. We, too often, see it as a weakness and as  reason for embarrassment that we should be wrong. Sometimes, we are even horrified to consider the possibility.
   I will tell you this: There is long life in the person who does not worry what others think of him (or her), there is mental stability. The person who allows himself (or herself) to be wrong, is the person who stands above his (or her) own faults, who can conquer them.
   The scripture speak of peace. "My peace I give unto you," says the Savior, or words very similar to that. How it is, then, if we are not proud, if we are so humble that we can accept our own faults, that we will be at peace with ourselves.
  Peace lies in choosing to accept ourselves, even if we have faults. If you would seek for peace and happiness, you must be willing to accept your shortcomings. To do so, you must be willing to accept the truth about yourself. And, so it is, the person who accepts truth is the person who finds peace.
 

Vetting isn't Vetting if You Don't Vet

   I so do not understand that the FBI is not investigating the accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
  Do we just say the charges are false, so, no, we are not going to investigate?
  Do we say these things happened way too long ago, and all the leads are cold, so, no, we are not going to investigate?
  Or, is it that we are not going to let someone make political hay? We won't investigate because the charges are clearly political. Instead, let's investigate the supposed victims, and find out if they are democrats. And, if they are, let's leave it at that, and drop any thoughts of an investigation.
  Or, is it that the FBI already did its background check? Case closed. Too late.
  Do we say the FBI doesn't want to investigate? Would it be more truthful to say the FBI doesn't do background checks on court nominees unless asked to do so?
  Do we say the FBI doesn't investigate matters between juveniles 36 years ago? It isn't in their job description.
  Do we suppose these incidents boil down to he said/she said, so why bother? No one can prove anything, so why even mess with an investigation?
  Do we suggest these were too small of incidents? No one was actually raped. No real damage was done. These things -- even if they were true -- are just too trivial to be concerned about.
  Do we say these charges are not what he should be judged upon? What matters is the record he built in all his years on the court. Judge him on his judicial record, not on juicy rumors.
  Or, is it that we've got a deadline? If we stop to investigate, we won't meet our deadline. So don't investigate.
  Do we say Blasey Ford doesn't even know where the party was held, so how do we investigate a party held 36 years ago if  no one even know where the party was held? To that, I would say, an investigation might well reveal where the party was at.
  Do we say if he did it, he obviously has repented? He is such a good man. Since he has repented, forgive him.
  Do we say, what happened at Georgetown Preparatory School, stays at Georgetown Preparatory School? And, what happened at Yale, stays at Yale?
  Do we suggest there is already an investigation -- Congress is investigating, and to ask the FBI to do so would be but duplication? No need for that. No need for double-dipping. No need for an investigation since there's already one underway.
  Do we say that if we don't nominate this guy, the November elections are going to roll around, and if the Democrats win, all will be lost? When they hold the majority in Congress, they won't be approving Trump nominees. Act now, or lose the chance.
  Do we say the conservative agenda is too important to be impeded? Doing away with Roe v. Wade is vastly more important than the moral fiber of the justices making the decision. In this case -- clearly -- the ends do justify the means, and begone with anyone who does not understand.
   Do we say these type of charges never came up when Democrats made Supreme Court nominations? So -- no, no, no -- we are not going to investigate. Forget it. Don't even consider it.
  When all the reasoning is in, I still do not understand why there is no investigation. The reasons seem but excuses and empty ones, at that.  Isn't this a vetting for the highest court in the land? What's the level of importance here, that we should skip over one of the basic steps of vetting? Whether these things happened so long ago that we might choose to confirm him regardless whether the charges are true, still, there should be an investigation.
 Of course there should be an investigation.
 Vetting isn't vetting if you don't vet. And, honesty isn't honesty if you don't seek it. If you don't want the process to be called a sham, investigate.

We Should do what We can to Determine Which Side is Honest

   This would be an unfortunate attitude to take on the accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh: These are nothing but character assassinations, but let us go ahead and have a hearing, anyway -- so we can say we heard them out -- but then let us quickly vote to confirm him.
   If you don't want character assassinations, if you don't want someone's life to be wrongfully ruined, you seek the truth. You investigate. You do what you can to determine which of the two sides is honest. 
   Both sides deserve that there be an investigation. Truth deserves as much. We cannot hold a perfunctory hearing, then simply vote Kavanaugh in, and say justice has been served.

Sanity is Limited to Those with Open Minds

   Sanity is limited to those with open minds. Truth cannot be taught to those who will not hear it.
   One expression of insanity is the refusal to live in a real world. Those insane often reject the truth, choosing instead to live in an alternate world where their facts are the facts -- where their false facts are the facts.  No mind is so closed as the mind that sticks to false facts, that will not hear the truth for fear of what is in the truth. Living in fear of truth is the definition of insanity, or, at least, it is the definition of one form of insanity.
   Being sane requires a person who will weigh the truth. If you will not accept truth, you live in delusion, and delusion is the domain of the insane.

If You don't want the Process to be called a Sham, then Investigate

   I do not understand that the FBI is not investigating Christine Blasey Ford's accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
  Do we just say the charge is false, so, no, we are not going to investigate?
  Do we say it happened too long ago, and all the leads are cold, so, no, we are not going to investigate?
  Or, is it that we are not going to let someone make political hay? We won't investigate because the charge is clearly political. Instead, let's investigate Blasey Ford and find out if she is a democrat. And, if she is, let's leave it at that.
  Or, is it that the FBI already did its background check? Case closed. Too late.
 Trump suggested the FBI doesn't want to investigate. What? I wonder if more truthfully, they don't do candidate background checks unless they are asked.
  Do we say it boils down to a he said/she said thing, so why bother? In other words, no one can prove anything, so why even investigate?
  Do we suggest is was too small a thing? She wasn't actually raped. She got away before real damage was done. Is it too trivial to bother with?
  Do we say it doesn't matter? What matters is the record he built in all his years on the court. Judge him on his judicial record, not on juicy rumors.
  Or, is it that we've got a deadline? If we stop to investigate, we won't meet our deadline. So don't investigate.
  Do you say Blasey Ford doesn't even know where the party was held, so how do you even investigate a party held 36 years ago if you don't even know where the party was held? To that, I would say that if Blasey Ford doesn't remember where the party was, perhaps someone else will. At least check around.
  Do we say if he did it, he obviously has repented, for he is such a good man? Since he has repented, forgive him.
  Do we suggest there is an investigation? Congress is investigating, and to ask the FBI to look into this would be duplication, double dipping. No need for that.
  Do we say that if we don't nominate this guy, the November elections are going to come around, and if the Democrats win, all will be lost? When they are in charge of Congress, they won't be approving Trump's nominees. So, act now while you've got a chance.
  I so do not understand. I just do not fathom why those in position to call for an investigation are not doing so. Isn't this the highest court in the land you are vetting for? Whether you say it was so long ago that it doesn't matter -- especially since there haven't been any incidents since -- still, you investigate.
 Of course you investigate.
 Vetting isn't vetting if you don't vet. And, honesty isn't honesty if you don't seek it. If you don't want this process to be called a sham, investigate.

If He Would Lie Under Oath -- Do We Really Want That?

  A few days ago, I took Brett Kavanaugh's denial that he was even at the party as evidence that he, indeed, was at the party. If you are going to deny that you were at a specific party, you have to know the party was held.
   And, if you didn't even go to that party, how do you remember it?
   It would be more likely to say, "What party is she even talking about?" and to scramble to remember the party. That would make sense. But, to basically say, "Oh, I remember that party . . . but I never attended it"?
   Well, someone suggested to me that Kavanaugh learned enough about the party to know he wasn't there. Now, that makes sense. He could have learned it was at a certain place, and he knew he never attended at party at that location.
  Still, there is reason to suspect Kavanaugh. Among the factors suggesting Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth:
  (1) If you are just making a story up, why would you place Mark Judge in it? He is Kavanaugh's friend, not yours. Isn't he going to be inclined to stand with his friend? If you are just making a story up, don't create witnesses that are going to witness against you. Only a fool would make up a story like that.
  (2) Mark Judge says he doesn't want to testify to the committee. "I have no information to offer the Committee and I do not wish to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford's letter," Judge said in an email to the senate committee's chair. If the incident never occurred, and if all you have to do it tell the committee it didn't, of course you testify. You are outraged at such a lie, and you are willing to help the committee arrive at the truth. You are willing and anxious to help a friend. How suspicious is it that Judge has asked that he not be called on to testify?
   (3) Blasey Ford is calling for the FBI to investigate. If you are telling a lie, do you call on the FBI to investigate your lie? Yet, she has not only called on the FBI to investigate, she has pleaded, even threatening not to show up for a hearing until the FBI investigates.
   Kavanaugh's saying he was not at the party expands what there is to investigate. Without the denial, if you are wanting direct testimony, you have but the witnesses of Blasey Ford, and Kavanaugh, and Judge. If you get lucky, you find something in the intervening 36 years that they have written in a letter to someone. That would be first-hand information. Whether Kavanaugh was at the party is not as critical. If he was there, it doesn't prove a thing. You can go to a party without committing a sex offense.
  But, with Kavanaugh denying he was even at the party, all changes. If he is lying, his credibility is in question. If he is lying about being there, is he also lying about whether he sexually attacked her? So, who are you going to believe, Blasey Ford or Kavanaugh? Which one has greater credibility?
  Now, whether Kavanaugh was at the party becomes more relevant. If he is saying he wasn't there, and it ends up he was, you have something. It is pertinent. And, it widens the list of first-hand witnesses. If you are investigating whether he was even at the party, everyone who remembers seeing him there becomes a first-hand witness to that.
  If Kavanaugh was there, and yet is saying he wasn't, that becomes a concern, in and of itself. The matter is no longer just about what might have happened 36 years ago. Now you are considering Kavanaugh on the basis of an action that just occurred. Do you select someone for your highest court who would knowingly lie in order to get that appointment? Now, when he gives testimony Monday, or whenever, he will probably be placed under an oath to tell the truth. Lying under oath isn't taken lightly in America. Placing someone on your highest court who lies under oath -- do we really want to do that?

(Blog edited and partially rewritten the morning of 9-22-18)

In Everyone's Mind, there Lies a Shadow

   In the mind, there is a shadow, and it hangs over everything we think. It darkens the spots we are afraid of, and those we do not want to face. This shadow that hides the truth, allows us to run from the truth -- allows us to run free from it and escape it.
  You've heard it said that we're all a little bit crazy? Well, we all surely have this shadow. So, yes, we're all a little bit crazy. But, it's not until the shadow gets big enough, that we are credited as crazy.
  You've heard the phrase, "You only believe what you want to believe"? Well, that's what I'm talking about.
   The mind will not go into taverns it is afraid of. And, that includes -- even means -- it will not go into rooms where the truth is, if it is afraid of those truths -- if those truths are in conflict with what we want to believe. Truth is rejected when it comes in conflict with our personal beliefs. We grab out for excuses and for counter claims and give them more value than we give the truth, itself.

If We Treated Minds Like Bones, it Might Help Solve this Problem

   A prison guard is a prison guard. That's all he is designed to be. Maybe it should be different, though. We send a lot of the mentally ill to our prisons, and, those with mental illness are not going to overcome it without a lot of love. Many times, it is the stark realities of life and the harshness of the world that have chased them to their mental conditions, to begin with.
   And, you don't solve a problem by administering a double fold of what caused the problem in the first place.
   We can see how those with mental illness can be shattered emotionally. A good portion of them are such that their minds are fidgeting, shaking and quivering. The term "cracked" came about because that's exactly what happens to them. They get hit by life so hard that the blows crack them. Now, if someone has a cracked bone, you don't administer a couple hard knocks and expect them to get any better. You'd take all the pressure off the bone, to allow it to heal. So, why do we suppose it's any different when it is the mind that cracks? If it is to heal, it must be treated gently, kindly, and with TLC. Love, I think they call it.
   And, just where is a prison like that?
   At this point, you are probably thinking I'm calling for the criminal mentally ill to be separated from the rest of the criminals. I suppose I am. But, only because the other prisoners can be threatening to them. If they are to heal, they need to have as much of a threatening atmosphere stripped away from them as possible.
   But, our prisons are all in need of administering more love. I wonder if all of them shouldn't be houses of love. It is late, though, so perhaps I will post more on this some other time.

Do Climate Apologists have an Answer?

   I would an answer from the climate apologists, from those who say man-made gases are not to blame, from those who say temperatures have risen in eons past, so it is not man-made gases that we should blame.
   Yes, climate apologists note that this is but a small, small, small slice in the history of our earth, and there have been other times of heat. 
   I wonder, though, if instead of rejecting the possibility that greenhouse gases are the cause this time, if we should wonder what were the causes for the temperature increases of the past. Science teaches us that for every action, there is a reaction. So, what is causing the current climate change? If it isn't man-made gases, what is it? I think I should search among all that the climate apologists are saying, as for their explanation as to what is causing the current rises. I'm guessing they have been asked this before, and they might well have an answer, and one that makes sense.
   On Facebook, I ask this question of a friend. It has been a couple days now, and no answer.
   How does the fact the earth has undergone temperature changes in the past mean that the current temperature changes are not being caused by greenhouse gases and are not being caused by man-made actions? It doesn't. Everything that happened back then had its own cause.
   The question is, What is causing our temperature changes now? And, if you don't believe it is greenhouse gases and man-made factors, then you surely should be prepared to say what it is.
   Do climate apologists have their own answer? Or, are they just critics, standing in the way of reason?




Just because something has happened before does not mean it is not real this time.

Stop the Apple Cart Long Enough to Determine if Kavanaugh is Clean

   This might be the most you can do in determining whether Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually attacked Christine Blasey Ford back in high school, so do it:
   Kavanaugh says he wasn't even at the party. So, put the FBI on it. Even after all these years, contacting the schoolmates and asking them if they were there, and asking them if Kavanaugh was there, might possibly determine if he was at the party.
   If he wasn't there, he's innocent.
   But, if he was, then, if nothing else, he is lying by saying he wasn't. That, in and of itself, might be sin enough and cause enough to keep him off your high court. And, if Kavanaugh was at the party and here he is saying he wasn't, that leaves Ford as the more credible side to believe. So, you must give her story credence.
   Let us also consider the notion Democrats sat on this information, then brought it up at the eleventh hour. I might wonder why they waited, too, but it seems somewhat immaterial. Seems they could do just as much damage at one point as at the other. And, it seems that what is relevant, is whether the allegation is true, not whether it unfolded on a timeline acceptable to the Republicans. It isn't going to hurt if you wait a week or so to try to determine the truth of the allegation. Don't push the apple cart forward if there are allegations the apples are unclean. Stop long enough to determine if they are clean.
   You must then decide if you wash and clean the apples, or if they are contaminated beyond that. There have have been so many of these cases. Should you ever forgive? If this did happen, was it a lone incident? And -- supposing it did happen -- do you say his being under the influence of alcohol led him to forget the incident?
   Or, do you look warily at how he is denying he was even at the party. If this were a court of law, that would be perjury, and it should be taken just as seriously as if it were a court of law.
   This Kavanaugh, present tense. If he was not at the party, excuse him of the charges, but if he was, then wonder if he is justified in not remembering the incident.

If You are to Change a Nation, You Must Appeal to its Families

  If you are to change a nation, you must appeal to its families, for it is the families who hold the power to change the attitudes and beliefs of the people.
   If you have crime, it will, to some extent, be because there are those not getting the memo that crime is not okay. They are not being taught by their parents. Get the parents to send the memo and the message is more likely to take. You might suggest their parents are no better than the children, so why would they even think to teach against crime?
   First, before answering that question, let me tell you why the family is the place where these values need to be instilled. Wherever they are instilled -- at school,  the YMCA, church, or wherever -- is good, but let us take note as to why the family perhaps is the best place.
   When a child is born, it becomes "flesh of my flesh." A bond is made. The parent has affinity for and unity with the child, and likewise the child for the parent. Love, I think they call it; A strong bond of love is created. And, this same love is possible when children are adopted, or raised by extended family or by others.
  A fierce loyalty is created and exists among family members. Parents are protective of their children, siblings are protective of each other, and children -- at least and especially young ones -- tend to almost worship their parents.
   That is a natural. If you rely on someone so deeply as children do their parents -- if you need them for your food and sustenance and everything else -- then the inclination is to honor them. The sense of needing the parent creates a sense of yielding to the parent. Plus, the parent is bigger, and that adds more to the sense of doing whatever the parent says.
   So, enter instruction into this venue. In what other venue does a person have more incentive to do what he or she is told than in the venue we call family?
   Now, as to whether a criminal will teach a child to not be a criminal, it is true the criminal will likely train the child to be like him (or her). But, not always. There can be a natural tendency to want the child to do good. "Don't do as I do, do as I say," is the phrase. The parent sometimes feels an obligation to raise the child right, even if he or she is not doing all that is right.
   The nuclear family, then: the best place to start if you want to better your nation. If you want to persuade people not to be criminals, start with the family. If you have any social malady -- prejudices, police violence or whatever -- if you can get your families to teach against those social maladies, you will probably do more to solve the problem than you will by addressing the issue any other way. 

Could We Trace Our Nation's Problems to What is Taught at Home?

   Perhaps you can trace some of this nation's problems to what is being taught in the homes. What are our nation's social problems, and what do we suppose it being taught -- or not taught?
   Gang violence? I haven't lived much in areas invested with gangs, to have too much a feel for what the parents there teach. But, I do wonder, do the parents say, "Don't hang out with those kids. Don't get involved with anything that looks like a gang. Don't carve any art on your arm that is a gang emblem. Just don't do it; Stay clear of them."?
   I would imagine, in some cases, parents are so fearful of the gangs, they dare not say one such word against them -- they dare not even warn their children against them.
   What about racial prejudice? Do parents sit their children down for the talk on treating everyone equally? Do they teach the children that blacks are the same as whites, just with different skin coloring? Or, do they toss in asides, such as, "Blacks are that way, son. You'll just have to live with it."?
   Or do they not teach anything about race, at all? If so, they leave the teaching to the streets, and to the prejudices that can be gathered on the streets. If you don't want your child to be a racist, you should teach him or her not to be one.
   Our nation is divided, politically. It is one of this country's biggest problems. What is taught in the homes -- a hatred of Democrats by Republicans and a hatred of Republicans by Democrats?
   You know it is.
   We have police violence -- police shooting people when they shouldn't. What is the parent teaching the son or daughter when that son or daughter joins the police force? Is it, "Son you don't be afraid to use that weapon. You're my son, and I want you alive. Don't wait for it to get to the point where you're in trouble. Use that weapon to keep yourself alive."?
   Such words might be okay as long as the parent also ticks of all the times the gun shouldn't be used: Don't shoot just because some doesn't obey your orders, don't shoot a black person any quicker than you'd shoot a white person, don't shoot anyone at all unless you have to, etc.
   I would doubt parents teach their grown adult children such thing when they become police officers. But, perhaps they should. A parent should never cease being a parent. For that matter, parents should teach these things to their young children. How many of our parents today teach their children that police shouldn't shoot someone just because orders are not being obeyed, and should never shoot a black person any quicker than a white person, and should not shoot anybody unless it is necessary?
   Our police officers are being killed. How many parents refer to the police as pigs, or teach that they can't be trusted? It is one thing to let the child know some officers are corrupt, but the child needs to have a positive feeling towards police officers. Parents should teach that. 
   If we are to solve our problems, it may take the family to do so. The family is not only the basic unit of society, it is the place where basic values are instilled. If you have a parental problem, you'll have a societal problem. We must wonder if some of the problems we are having are due to what is or is not being taught in the home.

The Breakdown of the Family, is the Breakdown of the Nation

   When we speak of how the breakdown of the family affects the values of the children, when we suggest there is more crime when the family unit is not whole, are we correct?
   I think we are, and let me tell you why.  Parents realize, to a large extent, that it is their responsibility to teach the child not to steal, and not to lie, and to be good. That is a given. Whether it is instinctual or something society instills in them, parents know they are to teach their children to be good. Sometimes, they even might be wicked -- to use that term -- yet they strive to make their children better than themselves. "You will do as I say, not as I do."
   And, there is something about the bond of a parent with a child that makes this instinct stronger -- love, perhaps. A natural parent is more likely to love the child. There is that tendency. The child is "flesh of my flesh," so the parent loves the child. A non-natural parent is more likely to be absent love for the child.
  And, with the love, comes the correction. With the love comes the desire for the child to succeed, and to be good. I think of the wisdom of Solomon, and how two women both said a child was their own. Solomon suggested cutting the child it two, and giving half to each. The real mother would have none of it, for she loved the child, and wanted no harm to come to it.
  But, what of having just one parent? Isn't that enough? If that person is the natural parent, won't there be love the same as if there were two?
   Well, there are different factors, but overall, no, there will not be the same tendency to raise the child right when there is just one parent. Again, I must explain why. First, let me suggest there might be one factor that drives a single parent to be a better parent than a married parent. The child is all they have. They don't have a spouse. So, the tendency is to draw even closer to the child. This tendency will be stronger when parents have just one child, than when they have many.
  Another factor is whether the child is considered a burden. There is a loss of freedom that comes with having a child. There are responsibilities that come. The parent sometimes seeks to be free of the responsibilities, even to the point that it creates a resentment of the child.
    I think it should be noted that that tendency is more likely when there is just one parent than when there are two.
   For one thing, the tendency to feel the child a burden is more likely with a single parent. Two parents sharing the responsibilities can meet them more easily. One parent facing all the tasks -- including earning a living -- is more easily overwhelmed; The burden factor is higher.
   I read how half the women having abortions do so because they don't want to be single parents. Half! The breakdown of the family, then, clearly affects abortion rates. But, note this just as clearly: If there is a greater tendency for singles to abort, there probably also is a greater tendency for singles to feel the child a burden. Even after the child is born, and among mothers who do go ahead and have the child, instead of aborting, there is likely going to be more resentment of the child.
   And, therefore, less love.
   And so, is it not clear that the breakdown of the family creates less love? And, shouldn't it be clear that with less love, comes less tendency to teach the child correct values.? There comes more neglect, and a child that is neglected is not a child that is corrected.
   Other factors bringing more love -- and thus more correction -- when there are two parents? How about competition? Whenever two people are involved in any project,  there often will be a degree of competition.
   And, there is the checks and balances principle. If one parent is not raising the child right, the other parent will spot it. How often is it, for example, that one parent will suggest to the other that he or she is spending too much time at work, and ought to be spending more time with the family?
   And, there is more joy in an endeavor that is shared than in one that is faced alone.
   Well, other reasons why two parents are better than one are coming to mind. But, I find myself so tired, I am nodding my head before I can write them down to remember them. Sufficient to say just a few more things.
   One, a single parent can be just as good of a parent as a married one. There may be more built-in incentives for married parents, but that does not stop a single person from doing the job even he or she lacks those incentives.
   Two, the breakdown of the family can come even when there are two parents. If parents are not loving and teaching their children, that is a breakdown. And so, we must suggest, a single-parent family providing love and instruction is more functional than a two-parent family without that love and instruction.
   Three, when a society loses its values, the family suffers. The things parents teach, are the things society has taught the parents. The values of society are the values transmitted to the children. If you do not have correct values, you will not have correct training.
   Four, what the children become is what the nation becomes. If have a breakdown in the family, you will have a breakdown of your society. If the family breaks down, you will have more crime. I see this is something I have not dealt with enough in what I have said above. But, if you do not teach something, it will be less likely to be practiced. If you do not guide someone against bad behavior, they will more naturally fall into it. In the verbiage of one religion, the natural man is an enemy to God. So, left alone and unguided, he or she will likely make the wrong choices.
   If we are to rein in our crime -- if we are to cut down on gang violence, and police violence, and the number of mass shootings -- the place to start is in the home. Not all children grow up in accordance to their parents' teachings, but a lot of them do.

Changes in Attitudes, Changes in Latitudes, Chicago is Never the Same

   If Chicago is to be saved, it must be reinvented.
   You cannot fix Chicago, without Chicago repenting of what it is. Surely, it has been what it is for decades -- many, many decades.
   We could speak of the city, as a whole -- it's whole government, and its whole people. We could speak of how attitudes must change in both government and the citizenry. But, sometimes if you solve part of the problem, you set a model for solving the rest of the problem -- or, at least you establish momentum for solving the rest of the problem.
   So, solve the police problem.
   There are officers there who do hold racial biases. There are some officers who hold little value for the lives of those on the south and west sides. There are officers who hold improper values on the use of their guns. How many of them believe you shoot a suspect if he does not obey an order to stop, for example, I do not know, but I would be certain that attitude exists. These officers speak to each other, giving their values to each other. If one believes something, he spreads it to the others.
   The virus spreads until it has infected the whole. Only the officers vaccinated -- to use the term -- are not affected. Only those who tell themselves in advance that they will not do certain things -- those who inoculate themselves -- remain pure enough to be on the police force.
   If we could, perhaps we should let go every officer in the city, replace everyone at the top, and get rid of the existing police union. Replace them all. But, we cannot do that. There must be 12,000 officers. How to you replace that large of a workforce without more than a hiccup?
  So, get them to repent, so to speak. Comb through their ranks with surveys and inquiries. Find the ones who are willing to change their attitudes, and keep them.
  Dismiss the rest. Replace them.
 There are different ways of treating cancer. Sometimes, you cut the cancerous parts out. Other times, you kill the cancer, and hope the patient survives. It is no different with Chicago. You put it on chemo, and hope the chemo works.
  Retrain the whole of the police force and the whole of the governing body of the police force, and the whole of the union representing the police force.
  Demand change in the officers you have, or change which officers you have. Instill in them proper values. If you can instill proper values in your police force, you can save the city.

   Solve Chicago, and you solve problems that are plaguing the nation as a whole. 

   Violence on the streets, crime, gangs, drug trafficking, police shootings, police injustice, racism . . . Bring peace to Chicago, and you can bring peace to the whole country.

When your game 
is more important than your people, 
your nation lies in ruins

For Trump, I will Exceed Nature's Wrath

   A cousin of mine shares a meme, which says: "Anti-Trump rally, Friday morning on the beach at Wilmington, NC.Spread the word! #redwave"
   I playfully respond:
"Neither wind nor weather nor fate of night
  "Can keep me from such a fight
"Blow, ye angry demons
  "Spread havoc on this beach
"But I'll be shouting into the storm
  "And my voice will still have its reach
"Call a hurricane to stop me
  "Cast a storm before my path
"But my outburst will not be silenced
  "No, but will exceed nature's in its wrath"

Observing the Fallen can Include Those Who Fall in Police Shootings

  Perhaps, in places throughout the nation, before the daily flag salute, this past day was marked with a moment of silence for those who died in 9-11.
  I wonder at this, at how pausing to honor the fallen is always considered appropriate at flag ceremonies.
  On this day, it might be worthy to note there runs an unseen similarity to what the NFL flag-kneelers are doing. In protesting the police killings, are they not, to some extent, observing the deaths of those who have been killed? Is this not, to some extent, a form of pausing in observance of people who have lost their lives? If the timing is appropriate when we observe the deaths of veterans, and police officers and thousands of others, why then is it not appropriate when it comes to those who have fallen at the hands of police?
   Or, would we even be offended that they should be classed as being among our fallen? Would we suggest, they should have listened to the police, and should not have provoked the police? Would we say that to class them with those who have died at the hands of foreign terrorism is wrong?
   I am not of such an opinion. I think it not wrong to protest their deaths when the American flag is presented and the Anthem is played. I think it not wrong for someone to drop to a knee at such a moment.
   Bless America, and bless those who observe those who have fallen -- all those who have fallen.

(Note: A few small changes were made to this blog 9/12/18.)

There is a Mentality that Brought about the Dallas Shooting

  An police officer in Texas is returning home, but gets confused and enters another home instead of her own. Spotting the home occupant, and thinking he is an invader in her home, the police officer shoots him dead.
   The news story I read made no mention that the rightful home occupant threatened the officer, nor that he had a weapon. He apparently posed no danger.
   But, she shot him dead, the same.
   There is a mentality some of us have. There is a code of conduct. It says, if someone enters your home as a bandit, you have the right to kill them.
   Even if Officer Amber Guyger had been in her own home, this shooting would have been wrong. It would have been right in the eyes of many. Many would have even applauded her. Still, it would have been wrong. Wrong it wrong, even when it is popular.

Castle Law and Officer Guyger

   Officer Amber Guyger allegedly -- thinking it was her own home -- stepped into the home of Botham Jean, saw Jean, and gave him verbal commands . . .
   And, when he ignored her, she hot him dead.
   The Castle Law gives greater right to kill people who invade your home. Did Officer Guyger have those liberties in mind when she pulled the trigger? Was she thinking, if this person is in my home, then I have the right to kill him?
   The Castle Law might not be as liberal as it is in many states, and I do not know if Officer Guyger even was justified under the Texas version of the law. But, I see great dangers in such laws.
   I read the Texas law a little, but not enough to come up with an answer as to whether the Texas version of the law gave her the right to kill if in her own home. Here's a portion of that law:

Sec. 9.32.  DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.  (a)  A person
	is justified in using deadly force against another:
	(1)  if the actor [he] would be justified in using force
	against the other under Section 9.31; and
	(2)  [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
	would not have retreated; and
	[(3)]  when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably
	believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
	(A)  to protect the actor [himself] against the
	other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
	(B)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of
	aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
	assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
	(b)  The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
	deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
	subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
	(1)  knew or had reason to believe that the person
	against whom the deadly force was used:
	(A)  unlawfully and with force entered, or was
	attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied
	habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
	(B)  unlawfully and with force removed, or was
	attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the
	actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
	(C)  was committing or attempting to commit an
	offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

Where are the Leaders Pledging to Protect the Citizens?

   I search the story for a mayor, or a senator, or somebody saying the criminals will be brought to justice, that every resource the city has will be utilized to apprehend the perpetrators and bring an end to the shootings going on in Chicago.
   One killed, and at least twelve wounded in just one day of the continuing wave of shootings. I read down the list. These are random killings. These are not Tom and Jack sitting on the porch arguing, and one of them pulls out a gun and shoots the other. No, these are people taking a stroll, and getting shot. These are people being in their cars, and someone pulls up alongside them and shoots them.
   What are we at, about 2050 shootings so far this year?
    And, in how many of these have the shooters been apprehended? The words jump out at me from the story of Sunday's shootings. "Authorities say no one has been taken into custody." Yes, I think occasionally, the perpetrator of a crime is caught before the night is over. Sometime, if police are in the area, they respond and catch the person before he can get away.
   Does that happen often in Chicago? You have a tidal wave of shootings. Surely, you must be seeking to saturate the affected areas with a large police presence -- enough officers that you can catch some of the shooters.
   And, as wondered at the top of this story, where are the city officials, or state officials, saying they will not let the criminals get away with this? Where are the officials who would promise to protect the citizens?
   Oh, I am not in Chicago. I have not been following this story but for a week. Perhaps such statements and pledges are being uttered, and such pursuits are being made.
   But, I wonder.

Chicago Should Act Quickly

   I am not in Chicago, to know what facilities you could convert to jails and prisons. I understand, though, they have a shortage of prisons. It becomes imminent that you create prison space as quickly as possible.
   As in, within months.
   You have a crisis, with -- I believe -- 2025 shootings to date. Relying on Alderman Anthony Napolitano as the authority, three things are fueling the violence. One, the large amount of drugs being poured on the streets; Two, a high number of guns being on the streets; and, Three, an out-of-control stolen goods industry.
   So, you address each cause.
   Drugs, I do not know that the perception that the war on drugs failed didn't result in us relaxing the war on drugs too much. There has also been a resistance to incarcerating too many people, as we have noted more people are incarcerated in America than in other nations. We've had a backlash to that. And, there has been the blossoming of the libertarian belief that it is wrong to toss someone in jail, in the first place, just for drugs, for they do no one but themselves any harm.
  If drugs are a problem -- if they are fueling the violence in Chicago, perhaps you go back to fighting them. The alternative that libertarians would argue for is legalization. If you legalize the drugs, the criminal element no longer has those drugs for industry.
   I will only say, for now, that as long as the drugs are illegal, you have to fight the crime, or it will have free rein. Arrest the drug pushers as quickly as we did in times past, convict them as surely as we did back then, and reopen enough prison space to house them.
   Drugs? Hire enough police agents to track down the suppliers and dealers. Enforce things seemingly so small as possession (even if you use alternate deterrents instead of incarceration). Work with federal officials to stem the flow of drugs from their source -- Mexico or wherever.
   The second item in Alderman Napolitano list of three: Too many guns on the street. I think to skip over this. For the moment, I do not have an answer. I suppose a little bit of an answer is to enforce the laws you have, if you determine they are Constitutional. It is said Chicago has more gun control than most cities, but the laws aren't enforced.
   The third item, the large industry of stolen goods. Obviously, you need to better secure your properties, both residential and commercial. Is some of the theft is at gunpoint, during the day, so you cannot just secure the building tightly against walk-in gunmen? More officers, more patrols should at least cut into the problem.
   Chicago's problem is drawing national attention. There is concern throughout the nation. The things I mention above are surely being discussed and considered. I would say, do the things that are obvious, but do them quickly. Sitting around and musing at the problem does no good if you don't get right out and get something done.

More Boots on the Ground Helps in Policing as Well as in War

   If you don't have police, you have crime.

   I listened in on Laura Ingraham's town hall in Chicago tonight, learning the city is about 1,000 officers short. The blame was laid at Mayor Rahm Emanuel's feet, with it being noted you would have to ask him why he closed down three police stations.

   Since when do you shutter police stations? Since when is that a good idea?

   One of Ingraham's guests pointed to three causes: One, A high amount of drugs pouring into the city. Two, a high amount of guns on the streets. Three, A high amount of stolen goods being trafficked.

   Some are suggesting more gun control for this city already famous for gun control. I don't know whether gun control is an answer. To me, it seems the greater answer is to hire more police officers, and more detectives to investigate the crimes. 

   I also consider on the three causes cited by Chicago Alderman Anthony Napolitano. If he is right on the things fueling the violence, obviously you fight to shut off the flow of drugs into the city, you search for ways to reduce the number of guns (okay, I guess you might consider gun control), and you seek to stop the amount of goods being stolen.

   Hiring more officers plays into solving two of those three things. More officers gives you better odds at stopping the flow of drugs into the city. More officers gives you more resources to fight the amount of goods being stolen. 

   In a war, boots on the ground can be a big factor. Put enough boots on the ground that you catch some of the theft as it happens, simply by being in the neighborhood and spotting the crimes as they are unfolding. And, put enough boots in the office that once the crimes are committed, you can track down the criminals and bring them to justice.

   

If Your Game is more Important than Your People, Your Nation is Ruined

   In a dream I wish I would have had, I saw Colin Kaepernick walking into the stadium tonight, for the opening game of the NFL season.
   "Colin, are you going to kneel for the Anthem?" someone yelled.
   "Yes, even if I'm in the stands, I'm going to kneel," he said.
   "Isn't that disrespectful?" another yelled.
   "Kneeling has always been considered a way of showing respect, until now,"  he replied. "If I kneel, or if one of these guys down here kneels, then they don't count it for much, though, do they?"
   "Are you here to see if any of the players will kneel?" someone asked.
   "Certainly am," he said.
    "Aren't you all washed up?" a guy in a red T-shirt asked.
    He didn't answer, but another person in the crowd answered for him: "He's a Superbowl quarterback. He played played well in that game, leading the 49ers back before they lost."
    "You a communist?" someone yelled.
   He didn't answer.
   "You call policemen 'Pigs'?"
   "Don't you care about the servicemen who have lost their lives?"
   By now, he was being peppered with unfavorable questions. He took some of them, and didn't answer others. Finally, he held his hands out, palms down, as if to say, "Enough."
   "Hold on," he said. "Whatever you do or do not like about me, you need to know what this is all about. You speak about our servicemen, and how they have given their lives fighting for freedom. They go to places like Afghanistan, and Iraq, and they fight against the social injustices suffered by the people in those countries."
    He paused, then went on. "What about the people suffering injustices here?" he asked. "Do we just tell them to move to another country, and then maybe we'll fight a war for them. But, as long as they are living here, they are none of our concern?"
   He looked at the crowd. None of them were saying anything.
   "This doesn't make sense," he said. "The soldiers fighting for the rights of those in foreign lands come home heroes. Now, I'm alright with that. But, me? If I stand up for the rights of those here in America, I'm the most unpopular person in the country."
   He looked around. Still nobody was saying anything.
   "You ought to be with me on this one," he said. "Maybe you don't choose to kneel during the National Anthem, but you ought to be with me. These aren't people in some far away land. These are people right here in America. Some of you have a saying, don't you? What is it, 'America First'? Well, isn't that what you say? These people are your own, don't you care about them?"
   Most of the crowd was quiet, but one person spat on the ground and answered Kaepernick. "They're not our own. Don't call them that," he said.
    Kaepernick gave him a sharp look, but the man continued. "They're criminals. And, if a police officer tells you to do something, you do it. You don't give him at attitude."
   Kaepernick sighed. "Boston," he said. "This league has a team in Boston -- in that area. You know what is happening there? They have about 1,000 unsolved murders in three communities dominated by blacks and immigrants. You ask the police about those murders, trying to learn if they are even investigating them, and they don't even have all the background information on the victims, or if they do, they don't release it. Ask yourself why there should be more unsolved murders there than other places. Are these just poor black people, and they don't matter? It doesn't matter if poor blacks are murdered, so why solve these cases?"
   He paused. Looked around. Everyone was quiet.
   "Chicago," Kaepernick said. "The NFL has a team in Chicago. A month ago, there were 74 shootings that weekend, 12 of them were fatal. That's equal to a pretty significant mass shooting, isn't it? You go ahead and say we can't blame it on the police, but can we? There are nights when these parts of town have few police on patrol. If you don't have a police presence, you are going to have crime. If you don't care about these people because they are just poor black people -- and you think they are all criminals, at that -- then you aren't going to go help them. Some people say the police are afraid to go into these districts. I don't know; I think they just don't care. One in twenty shooting are solved? What does that tell you? Are they even investigating them adequately? After all, why patrol these neighborhoods and why investigate when these people are murdered? They're just black people, and -- and according to some of you, criminals at that."
  As he said the last sentence, he looked straight in the eye at the guy who had said they were not our own people, but just criminals.
   Kaepernick was still staring at him, but he continued."If people in Iraq need some help, we'll send an army. But, if its people in Chicago, we might not even have an officer available."
    His gaze left the man, and searched the rest of the audience. "Oh, by the way, yesterday, the trial of Jason Van Dyke got underway. He's the Chicago officer accused of murdering LaQuan McDonald. You know him? LaQuan was the guy walking down the middle of the street when the officer unloaded 16 bullets on him, 14 of them after he had already fallen to the ground. That's 16 bullets just for jaywalking."
   Kaepernick looked around the crowd, anger in his eyes. "You ask me why I don't salute during the National Anthem. You expect me to salute that? You expect me to salute all that?"
   The teams were now coming on the field and lining up. Kaepernick motioned at them. "People will tell you, Don't even roll the cameras for the National Anthem; Just wait and cut straight to the game. This crowd you are all part of, they don't care about people being killed in Boston and Chicago and Ferguson Missouri. 'Leave us alone about all that,' they say, 'We just came to watch a football game.' "
  Kaepernick pulled his fist back over his shoulder, as if a football were in his hand, and he was about to throw a strike over the middle. And, he did deliver a strike over the middle, right to the center of their hearts. "If your game is more important than your people, then your nation lies in ruins," he said as he dropped to one knee for the National Anthem.

Who Cares of the Blacks and Immigrants Murdered in Boston?

  The thought, "If you don't have police, you have crime," is hanging in my head, and I am wondering about Chicago and whether parts of that city are not adequately patrolled, when I hear a statistic from another large city: 1,000 murders remain unsolved in certain sections of Boston.
  Now, having 1,000 unsolved murders is a different thing than having 1,000 murders. One possible reason for so many unsolved murders is that there hasn't been enough effort to solve them. The Boston statistic churns through my head, and I wonder if these sections of town are black sections of town, and the murders are not high priority because they are murders of poor blacks.
  This, too, would be one of the social injustices Colin Kaepernick considers. This could be one of the things the NFL players consider as injustices when they kneel during the playing of the National Anthem.
  I call up a story, "Three Boston neighborhoods, 925 unsolved killings," says the Boston Herald headline from October, 2015. I am stunned at the picture at the top of the article, because it immediately begins to validate my theory.  It shows Mary Ann Davis holding a picture of her grandson, Jordan Miller, who was killed in 2013, and whose murder remains unsolved.
  They are black. Mary Ann Davis and her grandson are black.
  The three sections of town are Roxbury, Mattapan and Dorchester. Could they be poor black neighborhoods? Looking in wikipedia, I find that Roxbury served as "the heart of Black culture in Boston." Mattapan? As of 2010, the majority of its residents were immigrants. Dorchester? It has a diverse population, with a lot of immigrants and a large concentration of African Americans.
   As I excitedly read the news story, I learned that the files the Boston Police turned over were incomplete, with 299 of them not even identifying the race of the victims, and some of them listing the victim simply as Jane Doe or John Doe.
   How serious can you be about searching for records when they are listed as Jane Doe or John Doe?
   I do wonder if many of the murders remain unsolved due to lack of effort to solve them. Who cares about the immigrants and the Blacks in these sections of town, that their murders should even be investigated?

Of Kaepernick, Chicagoans, and Standing with Them

  Consider LaQuan McDonald's case as you think about Nike's endorsement deal with Colin Kaepernick.
   He wanders down the middle of the street. Police pull up. Shots are fired. He spins around and falls to the ground. Video caught the shooting of LaQuan McDonald. With tomorrow's sun comes the trial of Jason Van Dyke, the police officer charged with shooting him.
   This is the police injustice Kaepernick is upset about. This is the cause for which NFL players go to a knee. Bless them, and consider many of them just might be aware of what is going on in Chicago.
    Two thousand shooting so far this year in that city. The violence is part of the reason for protesters taking to the streets. But, it is not just what is happening, but what is not happening, that all this falls under the roof of what Kaepernick is protesting.
  From 2011 to 2015, there were 28,500 citizen complaints against police. Of them, 97 percent of resulted in no action being taken against the officers. This according to the New York Times as quoted by quoted by the Young Turks.
   "Why do you think African Americans are protesting throughout the country?" the Young Turks host asks in the 2015 video.
    Consider, again, on the case of LaQuan McDonald. Other officers were present, witnesses were present. If the officer did shoot him, he shot him with impunity. If he did shoot him, he expected he could get away with it. Note, if you will, how that would require the complacency of the other officers. Note how that would require sweeping under the rug whatever the witnesses saw.
   It would seem, you only commit such a crime if there is a history of getting away with such things, and you have reason to believe you'll get away with it.
   Consider on the case of another officer, Jerome Finigan. The Young Turks announcer says the New York Times said Finigan had 68 civilian complaints against him -- with no action being taken against him. Finigan is quoted with telling the Times: "My bosses knew what I was doing out there, and it went on and on. And this wasn't the exception. This was the rule."
    What do you do when the police become the mafia? Do Chicagoans live in such a place?
   We go to foreign lands, and on foreign soil we fight for justice for these far away people. If we have those in our own country who are suffering under parts of government that are just as unjust -- such as the police in Chicago -- should we not be just as concerned?
   War is not required here. We only need to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Chicagoans in protesting against such policing.
    And, stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Colin Kaepernick in fighting such injustice wherever it is happening. That's just my thought. Your view might surely differ. But, to me, if people are being oppressed, you step in to help them.
   That is what America is all out. In part, it is about coming to the aid of those whose governments oppress them, be it in Iraq or be it in Chicago.
 

We Come to the Aid of Those Afar; Let Us also Help Our Own

  In Chicago this day, a protest drew but maybe 50 people. But, the hearts of all Americans should be with them. In a nation that demands justice, it would be good to see us demand justice for Chicago. In a nation that cares about its neighbors, and cares about the welfare of those in cities far away, let America care about Chicago.
  We go to war for those in far away countries. We fight for freedom for those in Iraq, and Korea, and Vietnam. Let us fight for those in our own land -- not with bullets, but with posters. Would that there were protests throughout our land demanding justice for Chicago.
   Protests for the southern and western ends of the town, that is, for they are the oppressed ends of the city. Today's protest called for something to be done about the violence and poverty in those ends of the town.
  I think of the words from a church hymn.
  "Because I have been sheltered, fed by thy good care;
   "I cannot see another's lack and I not share."
   Perhaps more succinctly, I cannot see another's need and I not care. Chicagoans of the southern and western sides are in need. We, as fellow Americans, should care.
   You will wonder what they face, what great cause is upon them that I should think that all of America should care.
   Wait one day, and I shall write again.

The Colors of the Flag and Those Who Kneel During the Anthem

   Consider the colors of the flag, and what they represent. And, think of the NFL players who kneel during the National Anthem.
   Red? The kneelers have the hardiness and valor to stand up for things they believe in -- even in the face of public criticism and, in some cases, being faced with the loss of their jobs.
   White? Purity and innocence? They seek what is right, and pure. The seek a more innocent America.
  Blue? And, blue represents justice? They seek justice. They seek that all people will be treated justly and fairly, and that blacks not be treated unequal to others in our legal system.
  We should not castigate the kneelers. We should look at the Constitution, which gives this people the right to appeal government for a redress of their grievances. When the flag is shown, it is a symbol of America, and it is not so unlike a government representative walking into the room. If you have a grievance, and the person you have the grievance against walks into the room, it is natural and fitting that at that time you should ask them about your grievance. That is all that they are doing. Bless them.

If you can't learn to fall, you won't learn to fly

Child Detention System for Immigrants Called 'Gold Mine' for Predators

  Thanks to the Deseret News for carrying an online story of an El Salvadorian official claiming that three youths from that country have been sexually assaulted while in immigration detention centers in the U.S.  Government-contracted workers allegedly violating children to me qualifies as a major story, but I didn't spot anything in the news until I came across this story.
   And, this is just the tip of the iceberg, in terms of allegations. The Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative publication ProPublica says it pulled police reports for the past five years and found police have responded to at least 125 calls reporting sex offenses at child detention centers primarily used for children who are immigrating.
  While calls also included reports of children abusing other children, and workers abusing other workers, a good many of them many them were of workers abusing the children.
   So, what of the government-contracted network of shelters for immigrant children?  "If you are a predator, it's a gold mine," Lisa Fortuna, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Boston Medical Center told ProPublica.
  "IMHO, it is borderline criminal that even one kid is in detention, alone without their family, at this point in the controversy," writes one online commenter to the Deseret News story, identifying himself or herself as unrepentant progressive from Bozeman, Mont. "The US is engaged in an evil policy, and every criticism is warranted. And a Congressional investigation ought to be on the docket." 

Here's Why 3D Gun for Mass Murder Threat Didn't Make Much News

  Would a story about someone threatening to use a 3D-printed gun to commit a mass murder make national news?
   It didn't. On Aug. 8, Austin James David West was arrested after allegedly saying he was going to commit a shooting "people would be talking about." West allegedly said he was going to commit a mass murder at Broadview University, a small school in the Salt Lake area.
   While West allegedly made the threat Aug. 7, the item didn't even make the news for weeks, not until a search warrant affidavit was unsealed this past Tuesday in the 3rd District Court.
   The comments beneath the Aug. 28 online story in the Deseret News open up with a commenter posting under the name, The Pug Life - Lindon, UT, noting a gun printed on a 3D printer would not be capable of mass murder, as it would fall apart after a shot or two. The Pug Life said you cannot even print a working gun with a traditional office printer. "That would be like printing a portrait-quality photo for your wall using your office laserjet printer," The Puglife said.
   While a 3D-printed gun, then, might not be capable of being used in a mass shooting, the question remains as to why the incident was not reported to the media until the search warrant affidavit was unsealed this Tuesday. Why was the affidavit sealed, in the first place?