Some Thoughts on Coaching

   If I were the coach, I'll tell you what I'd do.
   I'd say, We have no starters, we have guys who are playing well. And, each game, the guys who were playing well would be the ones who started. No permanent starters, just guys who were hot.
   Occasionally, I'd hold short scrimmages the day of the game, telling the players they were auditioning for the starting spots. And, the guys who did well in the five-minute preview would win the right to start. If they were hot the day of the game, hopefully it would carry into the game.
   Good play would always be rewarded. If you entered the game, and the team was doing well with you on the court, I'd be slow to pull you out. The players would come to realize they always had an opportunity. They could show themselves in practices or they could show themselves in the games, but whenever they did show themselves, they would be rewarded with playing time.
   You've always got a chance. No one is buried at the end of the bench without hope of playing.
   And, I'd be a scouting freak. I'd look at every player on the opposing team, studying all the shots they made, and all the shots they missed -- especially all the shots they missed. Were there commonalities? What about commonalities in the defense played against them? Were they missing shots when hands were in their faces, or when the defender was right in front of them? Did they succumb to trash talk, or respond well to trash talk? When a second defender was sent to cover them, did they get rid of the ball, or take the shot anyway? What were the commonalities in their turnovers?
   We'd find the weaknesses, and attack those weaknesses.
   And, I'd be a stat freak -- with the stats that counted most. I'd pay some mind to the plus-minus. If the team performed well while you were on the court, that would mean something to me. But, the real type of statistic I would be looking at would be those such as the true shooting percentage and points per shot. I'd be looking at turnover ratio -- how many times you turned the ball over per how many times you handled it. I'd look at rebounds.
  And, I'd create what might be a new statistic: How many points per shot did the player make who you were guarding and how many times did he turn over the ball? I'd factor those two things together and call it your defensive ratio.
  I'd hail the assist. If you found an open teammate, I'd not fail to take note. I would have more than one stat to follow assists.
   You want to play, just show yourself in the stats that matter.
   But, all the stats and scouting in the world do not translate into wins if you are not preaching self-belief. You win games because players believe. I'd be a praising coach. I'd be a loving coach. I'd be a positive coach. I would look each player in the eye, and solemnly tell them they could get better. I'd try to be conscious of every good thing they did, and verbalize and recognize it.
  I'd preach happiness and a joy for the game. A player who is tight emotionally, misses physically. I wouldn't scar a guy for the misses he made, I'd throw my hands out like, "Oh, well," and smile at him, and promise him he'd make the next one.
  A player who fears is a player who loses. Don't teach them to fear their mistakes and they will be less likely to make them. The greatest driver of good play is a fervor to play the game. If you can enjoy the game, if you can relish the challenge, if you can keep in your mind's eye that you can succeed, you will win.
   Don't let your loses define you, and in the end, you will win. I would preach hope beyond each defeat. I would preach tomorrow and the need to make tomorrow today.
   I'd coach to the end of the bench. I'd talk to the guy not playing, and urge him to stay believing. I'd tell him to relax and not be upset about not playing, just be ready to come in and be a team player and play up to his capabilities when the moment came. Don't judge yourself by your lack of playing time, and maybe don't judge yourself at all, just come in relaxed and confident and believing when you do enter the court. And don't come in thinking you have to produce 10 points in five minutes because you are not going to have much time on the court. Just come in knowing you can play good ball. Come in knowing you are a player, and whatever happens in that five minutes -- good or bad -- you are a good enough player that it has a good chance to be good.
  I'd watch for that eyes-frozen-in-the-headlights look and drive it away. If they were in a slump, I'd teach them to return to their moments. Go back to the moment you were the star on the team, and remember your mental attitude and recreate it. In a way, live in your past, or at least use it for inspiration. Fixate on the mental attitude you had, and bring it into the present.
  Yes, scouting and stats and drawing Xs and Os are all part of coaching, but instilling belief in the player is the most important thing of all.
  Games are not so much won by Xs and Os, but by a fervor for playing the game. I think of one college coach, and of how many of his players move on to become pros early, even though they are not overly NBA-eligible players. I wonder at that. I wonder if they are failing to enjoy the game, so their decision to move on to the next level is as much of an escape as anything.
  And, I think of another coach, and of how he has his team playing relaxed and enjoying what they are doing. If you enjoy the game, you'll be more likely to win. Teach a love of the game, and not a fear, and you will be a successful coach.

We should not Send Them Back into the Eye of the Storm

  You don't gain refuge by standing in the storm. What are we asking of these immigrants? Are we suggesting they to return to the storm, and shake their fists at the sky?
   For, we do suggest that instead of coming to America, they should return and fix the problems of their own lands.
   These are the poor and the needy, and we would ask them to stand up to the crime lords and the corrupt governments? Storms are more powerful than those who stand beneath, shaking their fists. Even so, that is about all the power they have against those crime lords and corrupt governments. If they stay in the storm, they will only get swept away.
   If we know the meaning of refuge, we must see we cannot send them back into the eye of the storm. Screaming at the wind does not get you out of it. Shelter comes only from escaping the storm.

The founder of amnesty in the United States was one of the founders of our nation, Thomas Jefferson.

The Healing of a Hip is Evidence of Evolution

  I point to my own body as evidence of evolution. If I understand correctly, my hip is so damaged that it is not to make recovery. The only recovery available is through operation.
  Yet, against this wisdom, I have, most certainly, recovered, to some degree. Oh, I remain hobbled, limping, slow of pace, and far, far from whole. But, I have still made significant improvement.
   I thank my God, not Charles Darwin, but I see in what Charles Darwin taught as reason for why I may have had a small share of recovery. Darwin taught adaptation of species. He taught that the environment can shape the being. If you live in water, and need fins to cope, you might grow fins, as a species.
  I do not know that I believe that. I don't know whether it goes so far as one species evolving into another. But, I do believe in the body's ability to generate and create ways to respond to the environment. If it is injured, it begins a process to overcome that injury.
   Now, here is my significant thought for this evening: If there is something to evolution, to adaption of species, then that adaptation begins in the first generation, not the second. If we believe the change is transferred from one generation to the next, until millions of years later the change is completed, then the change begins in generation one.
   The body might die before the full change takes place. Healing from a hip takes time, and most might not have that time.
   But, the healing of a hip is evidence of evolution.

They say a bird will migrate,
They say a fish will, too,
Even little insects
To avoid being squished in two

Every major animal
They all go back and forth
So you begin to wonder if the human
Goes from some kind of south to north

I consider all the Christmases
All the Thanksgivings, too
I think of summer vacations
And, migrations to the zoo

Every form of life,
Has its migration set
And in the human's makeup
It's there, too, you can bet

Now, if you know migration
It's not just a yearly thing
Other forms of migration
Are more than a summer fling

Some animals flee the winter
Some come in search of food
But they all seek a better life
Where happy is more the mood

And so it is with the human
He comes from Honduras up
Just like an animal seeking shelter
From storms that might disrupt

Now, think of all this travel
By animals and man
And, notice every trip is taken
To reach beaches filled with sand

The migrants from old Mexico
And, those from Ecuador
They all have a reason
For knocking on our door

It's Christmas here, year-round to them
And they seek to celebrate
Holidays with family
In a land that is so great

America, America
Where every day's a holiday
Your beaches are our vacation
From life in Uruguay

It's friends and peace and family
It's moving with the wind
And, they fly across the border
And, we call that quite the sin

When all they seek is comfort
As migrants always do
They are birds of the same feather
With us -- with me and you

I think of how the human
The American, he's called
Migrates each year at Christmas
Across borders never walled

I'll tip my hat to strangers
I'll share my Christmas, too
With those from Nicaragua
And those from Timbuktu

I think of all the birds
That gather to this land
And how we'd let a million koalas in
Hailing them as grand

I don't sit partial at the turnstile
Letting just feathered friends on through
If animals can migrate
Humans ought to be allowed to, too

ll
I am shaken loose to making confessions on thoughts I have had of late, concerning the phraseology, He who hath eyes to see, let him see, and he who hath ears to hear, let him hear. The truth can be placed right in front of us, clear as the brightness of day, so that all we need to do is open our eyes and see it. All we need to do is listen with our ears, but we will not do that. Sometimes, instead, we run from the message, refusing to view it, refusing to listen to it. We hide our hearts from the truth. The scriptures also speak of hard heart, saying, Their hearts were hardened, that they would not hear the truth. So, do I wonder if we keep truth away, today, because of the hardness of our hearts.

Only a dead man knows the truth

   We sometimes suggest that when we "get on the other side," then we will find out the truth of certain matters. If this is true, then this becomes a worthy expression, that only a dead man knows the truth.

If we dance with our fears, they will spin us away.
-

If People's Homes are Their Castles, does that give Them Right to Kill?

   In America, the gun and the home make you king, and a king can execute.  I speak of the Castle Law, that law giving you the right to kill those bringing fear to you by entering into your home uninvited.

  Why we believe in laws like the Castle Law, I do not know. Every killing should be judged by its full circumstances, not just by whether the Castle Law made it allowable. We call it the Castle Law for a reason, after the thought that a man's home should be his castle. That line of thinking has led us to give the homeowner much the same right to kill as a king would have.
   And, that is wrong.

   Too often, when we see these news articles about homeowners protecting their homes, we conclude the homeowner was within his rights, because the intruder did intrude, and the homeowner was simply protecting his home and his family. It is as simple as that. Whatever other facts might exist do not seem to matter. The homeowner had the right to kill. End of story.

   The facts of a case are meaningless when you have the rights of a king.

   Can we not see this system of justice is wrong, and should have been left behind the day America was founded?

   Justice by gun rights? How far will we let gun rights advocates incur into the rights of justice?

Truth is defeated only when it is not heard.
-

Give fear
 a life of its own, and it will capture the life of most anyone.

Nothing is so heavy

 as the weight of defeat, and no one so strong as the person who can bear it. 

When Truth becomes a Journey, its Listeners Fall behind -

  The point well made is never a long one. Truth stands in its simplicity, but is lost in a crowd of words. When truth becomes a journey, its listeners fall behind. Truth will out walk its listeners when placed on a long and winding path. Too much said will never be read.

We die by the fears we bring to life

  Our fears becomes our realities. I think of a friend who went to a home he was fixing up, bringing with him a gun, just in case something should go wrong, and he should need it. He placed it in a cupboard, and somewhere along the line, didn't realize he had cocked it.
   When he reached in to get it, it went off, spraying lead into his chest and stomach and shoulder. He could have died.
   Now, the idea that something could go wrong needn't have been a thought for him to give life to. By packing a gun along with him, and cocking it, he allowed the fear to have some reality in his mind. He almost died by a fear he gave life to.
   There are other ways this thought is true, that we die by the fears we bring to life. I think of myself, and a time when I had too much work to do, and allowed my wanting to get it all done drive me into a panic. I suffered a mini stroke. Now, if I just had relaxed -- not worried whether I could and would accomplish it all -- I would have been all right.
   Fear brings its own fall.
   I would been fine if I had not supposed I needed to accomplish so much. I gave life to the fear that all needed to be done. And, by giving that fear a life, I could have killed myself. Give fear a life of its own, and it will take the lives of others.
   Stress kills, as much as anything, I would guess. When we fear something, we create stress for ourselves. The oft-uttered advice, "Just relax," is simple, but it is the wisdom of the ages.
   Sometimes, we might even allow our imaginations to go crazy, supposing someone is out to hurt us, or destroy us, or bring a bullet to our back. True, sometimes others do with us harm. But, often they mean no harm at all, and it is all in our imagination. In such case, we give life our fears by believing in them. They cause us to panic, and our panic brings us harm.
   "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself," Franklin D. Roosevelt said.
   "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind," it says in II Timothy 1:7. I think of how we should not fear losing, for two reasons:
  One, the fear of losing brings losing itself. The person who becomes fearful of losing places that seed in his own mind.
  Two, if you are not capable of accepting defeat, you will bow under the weight of that defeat. This need not be so. A person who is stable, and -- as the scripture says, "of a sound mind" does not fear defeat. He will live with it if it comes his way.
   The fears we entertain become the realities we live. If we dance to our fears, they will spin us away.

  You can drink from a cup or draw from a barrel
 But it's your thirst that determines how much
    If you want to drink full from the waters of life
  You must pass through a desert or such



Note:
Or, the last line could be,
You must face the heat of a desert or such
Or,
You must pass through the heat of a desert or such

(Index: Poems)

If the NFL players are not allowed to protest during the anthem, then the freedom we salute is the freedom we take away.

If in the night we find solace,
in the day we will find peace. 

There is a chance I will not shower, though I surely, surely should. But, the lateness of the hour, means I won't, though could and could.

To Those of Hate, the Swamp is a Haven

I reply to a Facebook friend, by writing, "I spot your post, even as I am thinking on the effects of hatred. 'Fear and hate are all the Republicans have to offer their base,' you say, and I have been thinking on how many of those in that party have contempt for 'illegal' immigrants and for Colin Kaepernick and for those who believe in abortion. (I, too, am against abortion, but I do not believe we should display contempt for those who believe differently that us.) I wonder on this, wondering if Democrats return the same amount of reviling. The Book of Mormon speaks of returning railing for railing. Have we not become such a nation -- a nation of hatred, a nation of returning reviling for reviling? One throws a stone, and the other returns it. A nation governed by hate is not a Christian nation, or, if you would prefer to use another term to include those who are not Christians, not a virtuous nation. Think of your own self, my friend from the long, lost past, and reflect on whether the pictures you draw and thoughts you have and opinions you give do not spew from the same kind of hatred. Just as the Republicans find a whole class of society to hate (the undocumented, in particular, but other groups, as well), do you find a group in society to hate? If we all have become creatures of hate -- hating each other -- what is the virtue of our positions? There is no virtue in hatred, so opinions derived from it lack good anchor, and will sink with those same anchors. An opinion is no better than its anchor, so one based on the shallowness of hate will sink with it into the shallow waters of a swamp -- to it, the welcome waters of home. To those of hate, the swamp is a haven."

A nation whose language drops to the gutter, when it discusses issues with each other, should only expect the gutter to greet it when it searches for answers to those issues. The tongue is a reflection of the mind. If your tongue issues hatred, so will your policies. And, a nation governed by hate is not a Christian nation.

Good governance draws its power from following as much as it does from leading.

Select Your Actions from What is Right, and You Will be a Leader

   You don't gain your stature from the seat you sit in. No, to show your stature, you must stand. You must rise out of your seat and speak out. To have position and power means nothing if you are a a person who sits. Be instead, a person who stands, for anyone can act, whether they have position or power or not. It is what you do, and not who your are, that displays your greatness.
   Ir is not your seat, but the ability to be independent of it, that gives you greatness. You must decide what is right in deciding what to do. Decide what is right and then give voice to that rightness.  If you choose, instead, to only to take an action offered because of the powers you have, you may leave undone that which takes no special powers at all. The correctness of action comes not from power, but from the willingness to do what is right. Select your actions from what is right, and not the seat you sit in, and you will be a true leader, rather than just one in name only.

Study American history and you will learn that one of the reasons America went to war was that the king was restricting immigration, and that the first practitioner of amnesty was Thomas Jefferson.

The practice of amnesty -- now a dirty word -- was invented in America by one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson.

More precious than rubies, more prized than gold
Nothing so valued as new life to behold

We get our patriots mixed up. 
We hail as patriot, the despot, and see as villain, the person who stands up to the despot.

This thought came to me as I was thinking mostly about just one person, J. Edgar Hoover. Perhaps I will study more to get a better feel for whether it really applies to him.

Parkland is Just Water Under the Bridge in Utah, in Some Ways

  Parkland was water under the bridge, then, in some ways. All the protests and rallies and efforts of the students after the shooting were in hopes of bringing change. In Utah, legislators deferred last year, preferring to not act under the duress of the moment, but rather to wait for later.

And, this year? Nothing.

Rep. Stephen Handy raised a red flags bill, but it is languishing without moving forward. It takes guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. Ask yourself this: If someone jumped a gunman, and wrestled the gun from him, wouldn't that make him a hero? So, if society wrestles guns away from those who shouldn't have them, isn't that much the same thing? If society wants to be a hero, it will have to have the same courage to act as the person who jumps the gunman in a shooting. We have to have the courage to do the things that save people's lives.

Red flag laws are an attempt to do that. They take those who shouldn't have guns, and take the guns away from them.

So, was the Parkland shooting just water under the bridge? On the one year anniversary of the shooting, Rep. Handy's bill sat in the House Rules Committee, unable to get introduced on the floor. Like victims of a shooting, it lies on a floor, dying.

Now, this is not to say some gun legislation did not mark the anniversary of the Parkland Shooting. But, what was it? The House approved a measure suggesting "that the best manner to protect the vulnerable without infringing on the right of the people to bear arms is to enforce the laws already found in Utah code."

Bless those who feel this way. I see it differently, though. To me, all the shootings cry out, saying something more is needed than the status quo. The status quo is not enough. And, there are things that can be done. If there is one thing that should be clear, it is that many of the shooters in these shootings should not have been allowed guns. They should have been taken away from them.

We can do this, or we can ignore the wisdom of youth. The teenagers from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High and others around the nation beg that we act, that we do something to stop massacres such as we had at Parkland.

Taking guns from those who might abuse them is the right thing to do.

In at Least One Way, Kaepernick was One of the Greatest of all Time

  By one measurement, Colin Kaepernick was one of the best quarterbacks of all time. His touchdowns-to-interceptions ratio was the fourth best in NFL history. Collusion? Definitely. Blackballed? Spell that in capital letters.
  He was a Super Bowl quarterback in 2013, and led his team back in that game, although they came up short.
   Alas, it is argued he was washed up. No team signed him because he wasn't good enough to play on any team when his contract ended at the conclusion of the 2016 season. So, they say. Was he? Was he washed up? His passer efficiency rating was 90.7 that year, ranking him 17th out of 30 quarterbacks. That's pretty much middle of the pack. Are the 13 quarterbacks who finished below him also to be considered washed up? He tossed 16 touchdowns compared to only 4 interceptions in this year he was "washed up." Glossy statistics don't come to washed up quarterbacks.
  When he was benched that year, Blaine Gabbert came in. His passing efficiency rating was 68.4. That's a significant drop off. Clearly, the Niners were better when Kaepernick was on the field.
  It is said the court case settlement with the NFL gives Kaepernick perhaps more than $10 million. Perhaps, just as importantly, both sides can now move on. I wonder if part of the reason he signed the agreement was to get something out of the court case while still being able to take a contract in the Alliance of American Football, the new league with a team in Salt Lake City. The league lacks star power. Kaepernick could provide that. The league's owners are said to be smart, and you have to wonder if they have attempted to lure him. I'm just joking here, but I'm going to call the Salt Lake Stallions and ask them to sign him. I might even go to a game, just to be supporting Kap.

It is not the Executive Order, but the Deportations that I Wonder about

   We should be careful what we put in the Constitution, lest something like this sneaks in, and we obliged to give "illegal" immigrants all the same rights and privileges as everyone else:

   "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

   "any person within its jurisdiction" includes the undocumented. Does the law -- the highest law of our land, -- then, not grant equality to them? They are to have the same protections as the rest of us, and that would include the right to live here and the right to not be deported.

   The question should not be whether an executive order to fence them out is unconstitutional, but whether deporting them out once they get in is unconstitutional.
  In addition to the part of the Fourteenth Amendment quoted above, the first part of that amendment is also pertinent. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." Go back and learn what was done (and not done) at the time to naturalize those who came to America.
  Should we grant the undocumented citizenship? I believe we should consider whether the Constitution already does.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

From the Meme, My Mind Turns to the Scriptures

   Written by Leo d'Entremont, there is a meme noting slavery was legal, while helping people escape slavery was not, and noting that smuggling Jewish people out of Germany was not legal. I guess as I thought on this meme, the story came to mind of how Christ healed the man with the withered hand on the sabbath, which they felt was against the law. And when Jesus perceived this, he said, "Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill?"
   These are the poor, the immigrants. Many of them remain outside our borders because we refuse to let them in. Many of those fleeing from violence do not make it, because we refuse them. We should ask, do we make it illegal to good? Is it illegal to save them from possibly being killed in their home countries? Do we make it illegal to do good? We think of the day when there were Sadducees, We must wonder, though, if we have learned from those days. Or, from the days of Isaiah. What of those verses in Isaiah 10?
   "Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness, which they have prescribed: To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take way the right from the poor of my people." That passage was incorporated in the Book of Mormon, in 2 Nephi 20. We know many of Isaiah's words placed in the Book of Mormon were placed there for us in these latter days living in America. I only know this: that I cannot look at those verses, and look around me on all that is happening, and find anything that looks more like a fulfillment than how we are treating the undocumented immigrants.
   I think of the story of the good Samaritan, and of how the priest and the Levite would not help the person travelling the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, but he, a Samaritan, would. I think of this day, and of how many of my faith turn away these poor, and of how those some who call themselves atheists do not, but are willing to administer care to them. Who are the priests and Levites in this modern-day story, and who are the Samaritans? And, I wonder if the story were to play out in our day, if we would look at that man travelling the road to Jericho, and tell him he must first show his papers before we would help him.

 It takes great courage to jump a gunman, to wrestle a gun from him. Even so, it will take great courage from society if it is to take away guns from those who shouldn't have them.

With the Second Amendment, We Lack Courage to do what is right

  Seriously, now: In Utah, are they considering coming after your guns? Taking them away? Is this the day you have rued, the day in which they confiscate that which the Second Amendment gives you?
  For it is a slippery slope, they say. You take guns from one person, and the next thing you know, guns are taken from everyone. Big Brother snatched them away.
  And, we have legislation like this in Utah? In Utah?!
  HB209, sponsored by Rep. Stephen Handy, would take guns from -- among others -- those who show a pattern of threats, and from those who violate protective orders. If it can be shown you pose a risk to yourself or to others, the gun will be taken from you.
   Now, let me pause to say I can see the wisdom of not letting everyone have guns. It seems obvious, to me. Do we need a few more shooting like that at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High to convince us that some people just shouldn't be running around with guns? How many shootings must the nation endure before it wakes up and says, Stop the bloodshed, stop the carnage -- take the guns from those who shouldn't have them.
   Hey, even the National Rifle Association agrees some red flag legislation is in order. Red flag laws suggest that when good warning exists, the gun should be taken away.
  And, this from the NRA? I'm a little surprised. Now, I understand the NRA does not want prior restraint rights violated. And, I'm guessing they have limits on what things they agree are suitable reasons for taking the gun, in the first place.
   But, the NRA?
   And, I don't know if this is true, but I have read the ACLU has -- at least somewhere and in some fashion -- came out against red flag laws.
   What a flip. The NRA and ACLU trading places. The world turning upside down.
   What next -- the literal fulfillment of your fears that the government will come after your guns?
   I think on HB209, and of how someone who violates a domestic protective order might have their guns taken away. Say you have a leading gun rights activist, and he gets a divorce, and his wife receives a protective order, and he makes a visit, anyway  . . .
   Away with his guns! It could be said, if they can take guns from someone who has vowed they will have to pry them from his cold, dead fingers, then they can take them from anyone.
  I consider whether I favor a red flag law such as HB209. I conclude, I do. I can see the wisdom in it. I do, of a certain, see how it is not wise to let guns fall into the hands of those who cripple society by firing into crowds.
   But, what of the First Amendment? I wonder at how we bring the argument to a swift and screeching conclusion as soon as the First Amendment is mentioned. No guns equals no Constitution, for you cannot have one without the other.
   So they would tell you.
   And, I agree, we should not spurn our Constitution, nor its values.
   But, we must also consider on what is wise. Is it true the threat of mass killings would hang over us less if we enacted good red flag laws? Would suicides diminish? Evidence says they would.
   If wisdom is that we are better off if guns are taken from some, we should find a path to get there.
   Freedom will not be lost. The Second Amendment was established because those who became soldiers back then brought their own guns. If you took them away, you ended the right of the nation to raise an army to defend itself.
   Still, the wording is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If you infringe on that right, it is argued, you infringe on the Constitution.
   My thought is, we lack the moral conviction to do what is necessary and what is right. If we can see society will be safer if we take guns from those who shouldn't have them, and if we then draw back because we can't square this with the Constitution . . .
  Something's got to give.
  So, reword the Second Amendment, if you have the courage. Don't do away with it. Don't abolish it. Don't toss it aside.
  Just reword it to allow for what needs to be done. Take guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
   If something is wise, you do it. If you do not, you lack what it takes to take the path of wisdom. More, you lack the courage to do what is right. If wisdom says do it, you do it. If society will be safer if some people don't have guns, you take them away. Let me ask you, if you saw someone about to shoot into a crowd, and you wrestled the gun away from him, wouldn't that be the right thing to do?
   Take the gun away.
   It takes great courage to jump a gunman, to wrestle the gun from him. And, so it is with us: It will take courage to take guns from those who shouldn't have them.
   After all I've said above, about having the courage to add words to the Second Amendment, if that is what it takes, I'm not all sure that is necessary. The Constitution doesn't just say the right to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed upon. It says that because a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state, that is why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
   Back then, the soldier brought his own weapon. If you didn't provide that you weren't going to allow government to take guns away, that same government was going to be in a mess when it came time to go to war.
   Today, soldiers' guns are government issue. The war can still be fought even if the soldier doesn't bring his own gun.
    Perhaps, you would argue we must have the right to own guns so we can fight the government should it ever convert to an authoritative government. Well, then, ask yourself if taking guns from those who shouldn't have them is going to prevent us, as a whole, from having private weapons to stand up against the government.
   I'm thinking no.

(Blog changed and added to 2/14/19)
 

The wind that whips, whips its will. But when it is over, the snow lies gently on the ground.

And, so it is both peace and beauty come from a storm. You may be blown and tossed by the raging wind, but when it passes, you are left a better soul.

The heights of heaven are reached only by passing through the depths of humility.

I want the Book of Diagrams on My Desk by 2022

  The Book of Diagrams would certainly be an advancement of our understanding of medicine. There should a book such as this.
   Diagram a cough. Diagram congestive heart failure. Diagram cancer. The book would contain them all.
  About a year ago, I was discussing a doctor visit with a friend. I can't walk much. The doctor had diagnosed it as a bad hip, and wanted to replace it. My friend was retired, but she had once worked at the very medical establishment I was seeing. She, of course, felt, I should be operated on.
   Anyway, while in the process of discussing it all, I mentioned to my friend that it seemed like doctors should be able to tell me exactly what is happening, step by step, telling me in exact fashion the process that was leading to my not be able to walk.
   Not that the doctor wasn't able to tell me some things. The cartilage was gone. I was walking on a hip without cartilage. So, when I walked, it was bone-on-bone. Do you need to diagram it more than that?
   Yes, you do.
   What about each of my pains? What about each of my steps, and the pain that comes into them as I walk farther and farther? I stand up -- not yet having taken a step -- and at that point feel fine. But, the moment I take a step, the pain sets in. We -- living in such an advanced age of medicine -- ought to be able to diagram what is going on: When you place greater weight on the leg, an impulse detects both the increase in weight and the shift in bone positioning, and sends signals of pain to this spot and this spot to warn that the movement is not advisable.
   That would be my diagram. I don't know that the doctor would diagram it the same way. He might say: When you are standing still, there is no brushing action in the bones, one scraping against the other. It is only when you move that that scraping action occurs, so when you take a step, you feel the pain.
   I would want him to take it further. I would want him to explain why I tire, what is the process that leads to pain and tiredness increasing the further I walk. Why is it a tiredness -- almost a feeling that oxygen or something is being pinched out? There is stiffness involved. Are the stiff muscles preventing body fluids from reaching the body parts?
   Anyway, I suggest a book of diagrams. I am guessing no such book exists. I am guessing, in fact, that despite medicine being so far advanced, it is not this advanced. It knows cures and fixes, but it cannot diagram all the causes.
   Perhaps some it can. Perhaps we know that when you get a cough, it is because phlegm is hanging in your throat. You take a drink of water, and the phlegm might be washed clear. Or, you take a cough drop, and it causes the phlegm to break up. Something along those lines would be the start in diagramming how a cough works. Then, you would need to diagram how the cough came on in the first place: It was cold outside and you went outside, and the cold air touched the tender tissue of your lungs, affecting the ability of those membranes to function. To protect against this, the body sent a message to create phlegm, to cover over the otherwise unprotected membranes of your lungs. The phlegm is but an attempt by your body to keep your lungs functioning.
   So, I propose the Book of Diagrams. Every malady has a process that brings it about. Medicine, I am speaking to you. If you are so wise and advanced, diagram all my pains and sufferings. And, if you can't, then commence studies to determine what these processes are.
   I want a Book of Diagrams, and I want it on by bookshelf by, say, 2022. Are you up to it?

If SB96 Leaves any Lives out in the Cold, I Oppose it

I see a post on Facebook from State Rep. Ken Ivory, in which he said he planned to vote for SB96. I offer my input: Wish I had studied this issue more, Ken Ivory. "I have mixed feelings, though, from what I do know. If Prop 3 is flawed, then it should be changed. On the flip side, if all parts of society do not have medical care available to them, they should. I think of people dying because they do not have insurance. I think of procedures being turned down to those not adequately insured. It happens. In Utah. To me, if you can save a life, you do it. If it takes $100,000 to save that life, you do it. You do not argue that it will bankrupt your government. You find a way to pay for it, and you pay for it. The fact that we are concerned about bankrupting government to save people's lives points out how urgent it is to reform our medical system and to reduce costs. It is a must. Forgive, Rep. Ivory, but rather than opposing extending health care to everyone, I would to see legislation aimed at reducing health care costs. Is there so much as one bill up there on the hill this session attempting to do that?"