Perhaps we should try Hydroxychloroquine, after all.
Look at the figures today: 1,462 new deaths -- more than we have had in any one day for a while. Perhaps the fact that many are not wearing masks and not social distancing is at fault. Or, perhaps face-masking and social distancing are not in themselves enough.
This is like a basketball game. If things start going awry, you adapt quickly, or the game will be lost.
Yes, there remains reason to believe face masking, social distancing and isolation do work. For one (speaking of basketball) the NBA, itself, so far is evidence for (group) isolation. They went into the Bubble July 7 and have experienced little COVID-19 so far. That's the better part of a month of heavy breathing on each other. The isolation has worked.
That's a very good indicator.
But, nationwide, we are experiencing increases in COVID-19 at a time we didn't expect that to happen. Would it be so bad to say, Let's try the combination of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Zithromax?
In India, reportedly, its working. They've used HCQ. In their crowded slums, where bodies are thrown together and lungs share the same air, its working.
] Offer it to those who will have it, then. Warn them that some studies have shown it can cause heart rhythm, kidney and liver problems. Give them the choice. But, if they will have it, use it -- widely.
Tell them not to throw away their masks, not to quit social distancing. Those things surely have great efficacy. After all, what if it turns out hydroxychloroquine does not work? Keep the face masks and distancing in case it doesn't.
It is not that face-masking and such are not working. But, whether it is because many are not doing them, or whether we are just testing too many people and that pushes the numbers up, or whatever -- the numbers on infections and deaths are up. You spin and you turn when things go wrong. If the solution you've got is not solution enough, you add another.
Friday, July 31, 2020
Thursday, July 30, 2020
If the National Anthem Could Shed Its Own Tears, It Just Did
It was as if the National Anthem were a living entity, and it bowed in respect to the thought that Black lives matter, it -- the National Anthem -- being in reverence to the lives of Blacks being lost across the country.
No words were sung. No, as African-American artist Jon Batiste performed the National Anthem, he didn't sing. His performance was but an instrumental.
How often at sporting events does that happen -- just an instrumental? In all the times the National Anthem has been performed at major league sports, how often has this happened? Was the NBA trying to make a statement here?
"We will not be silenced"? There's a phrase repeated often in the protests. And, phrases such as this were repeated over the loud speaker audio background as the Utah Jazz and New Orleans Pelicans prepared for the first tip-off as the NBA season resumed.
No words spoken -- just an instrumental. It was as if the National Anthem were responding, "You will not be silent? Then, I shall be silent. I will mourn with you. If I have spoken out of turn in the past -- if, in the past, I have kept on lauding my own virtues at a moment I had let you down by not practicing those virtues, I apologize. I do care. I do grieve in the loss of your lives. If on the streets of protest you have paused in moments of silence for those who have fallen, I join you. I bow in my own moment of silence now."
And, so the words of the Anthem went silent this night of the Jazz-Pelicans game.
If the National Anthem could shed its own tears, it just did.
(Index: Black Lives Matter; Maybe)
No words were sung. No, as African-American artist Jon Batiste performed the National Anthem, he didn't sing. His performance was but an instrumental.
How often at sporting events does that happen -- just an instrumental? In all the times the National Anthem has been performed at major league sports, how often has this happened? Was the NBA trying to make a statement here?
"We will not be silenced"? There's a phrase repeated often in the protests. And, phrases such as this were repeated over the loud speaker audio background as the Utah Jazz and New Orleans Pelicans prepared for the first tip-off as the NBA season resumed.
No words spoken -- just an instrumental. It was as if the National Anthem were responding, "You will not be silent? Then, I shall be silent. I will mourn with you. If I have spoken out of turn in the past -- if, in the past, I have kept on lauding my own virtues at a moment I had let you down by not practicing those virtues, I apologize. I do care. I do grieve in the loss of your lives. If on the streets of protest you have paused in moments of silence for those who have fallen, I join you. I bow in my own moment of silence now."
And, so the words of the Anthem went silent this night of the Jazz-Pelicans game.
If the National Anthem could shed its own tears, it just did.
(Index: Black Lives Matter; Maybe)
Wednesday, July 29, 2020
In a Day Past, Would This have been Bigger News?
In a day past, had a group of doctors called for more use of hydroxychloriquine, would their call have made more news?
I mean, let's say there were studies coming back, doubting the benefit of the drug, but then this group -- and we shall call them the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons -- came out and said, "HCQ is both very safe and highly effective in treating COVID-19, reducing mortality by 50 percent."
Because, yes, there is a group called the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and that is what they are saying. And, in another message from the AAPS, they say there is a "war to suppress available, affordable, safe preventatives and treatments for COVID-19 as patients continue to die and economic carnage continues."
This is one of the notable medical organizations in America making that statement. I consider whether or not newspapers across the country should have plastered it across their front pages. "Medical Group Says Use of HCQ Suppressed While Dying Continues," the headline could have read.
As I wonder at our press, and why such news did not make bigger news, I consider that AAPS has from its start been very political. It came into existence in the '40s to oppose universal health care. It has sued Hillary Clinton. It is an organ for right-wing beliefs.
Still, it is a group of bonafide doctors. That its statements are political does not reduce their credentials as doctors and surgeons. COVID-19 has become very political, so it is natural that they should become involved. By the nature of their being conservative, they are going to rally to support causes President Trump is associated with.
For the very fact that they are credentialed as doctors and surgeons, however, it means their opinions should be respected as news. Carry in the story a count on how many of them there are, and compare that to how many doctors and surgeons there are, altogether. If they are one in twenty, report it.
But, carry the story.
(Note: Blog altered and changed 7-30-20. As a result of what I learned about AAPS, I downsized how serious of a wrong I think it is that they did not make more news.)
I mean, let's say there were studies coming back, doubting the benefit of the drug, but then this group -- and we shall call them the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons -- came out and said, "HCQ is both very safe and highly effective in treating COVID-19, reducing mortality by 50 percent."
Because, yes, there is a group called the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and that is what they are saying. And, in another message from the AAPS, they say there is a "war to suppress available, affordable, safe preventatives and treatments for COVID-19 as patients continue to die and economic carnage continues."
This is one of the notable medical organizations in America making that statement. I consider whether or not newspapers across the country should have plastered it across their front pages. "Medical Group Says Use of HCQ Suppressed While Dying Continues," the headline could have read.
As I wonder at our press, and why such news did not make bigger news, I consider that AAPS has from its start been very political. It came into existence in the '40s to oppose universal health care. It has sued Hillary Clinton. It is an organ for right-wing beliefs.
Still, it is a group of bonafide doctors. That its statements are political does not reduce their credentials as doctors and surgeons. COVID-19 has become very political, so it is natural that they should become involved. By the nature of their being conservative, they are going to rally to support causes President Trump is associated with.
For the very fact that they are credentialed as doctors and surgeons, however, it means their opinions should be respected as news. Carry in the story a count on how many of them there are, and compare that to how many doctors and surgeons there are, altogether. If they are one in twenty, report it.
But, carry the story.
(Note: Blog altered and changed 7-30-20. As a result of what I learned about AAPS, I downsized how serious of a wrong I think it is that they did not make more news.)
Tuesday, July 28, 2020
Free Speech is Being Challenged This Day
Freedom of speech is being challenged today. YouTube and Facebook and others were wrong in taking down posts by Stella Immanuel and a group calling itself America's Frontline Doctors.
The posts went viral last night and today, only to be scrubbed. Immanuel and the doctors had held a national press conference to declare that hydroxychloroquine works.
Is that so wrong? Supposing these really are doctors, their opinions should not be muzzled. Actually, even if they are not doctors, and even if it was a fabrication, it should be allowed to remain up, though flagged or tagged with correcting information.
You don't need to wear facemasks, Dr. Immanuel said. We have in hydroxychloroquine, together with zithromax and zinc, a cure for COVID-19. No one needs to die. The websites might be taking the posts down because they say that is false information. But, those are opinions. The doctors should be allowed to express them.
I am greatly disturbed with the suppression of free speech. In a day past, had a group of doctors gathered for a press conference to announce their beliefs, would what they said have had greater chance of being dutifully reported? Would the news stations simply have balanced what they said with the more accepted belief of the larger medical community? Would the news stations have gathered the names of the participants, verified them as bonafide doctors, and then have run the story? Would what the doctors said would have been reported with a greater degree of respect?
Actually, I don't know if in the age before the Internet, the media would have turned out for the press conference. But in this day, anyone can have their press conference and then post it on YouTube.
So, what of the press conference being removed -- scrubbed from YouTube and from Facebook and other places? These sites have become part of free speech. If you must link corrections or denials or whatever with the posts, do so. But, generally the content, itself, should stand. The video from America's Frontline Doctors should have been allowed to stay up.
Dr. Immanuel does not work at a run-of-the-mill hospital. She began working at Rehobath Medical Center, which she owns, in 2019. That does lessen her credentials. That is not one of the large hospitals in the Houston area. Still, she is a licensed medical provider. I do not know of the credentials of the other doctors. Dr. Immanuel is a clergy person, as well, and does have some off-beat believes. Let those be part of the public record, part of what is reported.
But, don't suppress free speech. If one authority believes hydroxychloroquine works, and another doesn't, both opinions should be allowed to be expressed.
(Edited and parts rewritten 7-29-20)
The posts went viral last night and today, only to be scrubbed. Immanuel and the doctors had held a national press conference to declare that hydroxychloroquine works.
Is that so wrong? Supposing these really are doctors, their opinions should not be muzzled. Actually, even if they are not doctors, and even if it was a fabrication, it should be allowed to remain up, though flagged or tagged with correcting information.
You don't need to wear facemasks, Dr. Immanuel said. We have in hydroxychloroquine, together with zithromax and zinc, a cure for COVID-19. No one needs to die. The websites might be taking the posts down because they say that is false information. But, those are opinions. The doctors should be allowed to express them.
I am greatly disturbed with the suppression of free speech. In a day past, had a group of doctors gathered for a press conference to announce their beliefs, would what they said have had greater chance of being dutifully reported? Would the news stations simply have balanced what they said with the more accepted belief of the larger medical community? Would the news stations have gathered the names of the participants, verified them as bonafide doctors, and then have run the story? Would what the doctors said would have been reported with a greater degree of respect?
Actually, I don't know if in the age before the Internet, the media would have turned out for the press conference. But in this day, anyone can have their press conference and then post it on YouTube.
So, what of the press conference being removed -- scrubbed from YouTube and from Facebook and other places? These sites have become part of free speech. If you must link corrections or denials or whatever with the posts, do so. But, generally the content, itself, should stand. The video from America's Frontline Doctors should have been allowed to stay up.
Dr. Immanuel does not work at a run-of-the-mill hospital. She began working at Rehobath Medical Center, which she owns, in 2019. That does lessen her credentials. That is not one of the large hospitals in the Houston area. Still, she is a licensed medical provider. I do not know of the credentials of the other doctors. Dr. Immanuel is a clergy person, as well, and does have some off-beat believes. Let those be part of the public record, part of what is reported.
But, don't suppress free speech. If one authority believes hydroxychloroquine works, and another doesn't, both opinions should be allowed to be expressed.
(Edited and parts rewritten 7-29-20)
Monday, July 27, 2020
Slander and Lies are Their Life Blood, Hate and Deceit Their Comforts
Let us wonder at the morals of this nation. What have we become, that we think this is just: An email appeal comes this morning from the Friends of Mia Love PAC saying, "Nancy Pelosi and Ilhan Omar want to defund the police and let our cities burn," and asking for a donation.
I email back, suggesting they are misrepresenting others. I am surprised to get a reply. "John, the Democrat Party has never been more radical."
"You are kind to respond," I email back. "Honesty, though, is important. In all that we do, honesty is important. Bearing false witness is wrong. Does Nancy Pelosi want to defund the police? Does she want to let our cities burn? Are those honest representations of her views? Or, are we making a buck off peddling lies when we make such accusations?"
I am shocked by the PAC's conduct. Yet, I realize how common it is. We should be shocked, but in truth we know such conduct is all about us. It is the way of the world and the way of our day. Those who think themselves honorable think nothing wrong in bearing false witness. Slander and lies are their life blood. Hate and deceit are their comforts.
I email back, suggesting they are misrepresenting others. I am surprised to get a reply. "John, the Democrat Party has never been more radical."
"You are kind to respond," I email back. "Honesty, though, is important. In all that we do, honesty is important. Bearing false witness is wrong. Does Nancy Pelosi want to defund the police? Does she want to let our cities burn? Are those honest representations of her views? Or, are we making a buck off peddling lies when we make such accusations?"
I am shocked by the PAC's conduct. Yet, I realize how common it is. We should be shocked, but in truth we know such conduct is all about us. It is the way of the world and the way of our day. Those who think themselves honorable think nothing wrong in bearing false witness. Slander and lies are their life blood. Hate and deceit are their comforts.
Sunday, July 26, 2020
Chiasmus Attests to Truth of Book of Mormon
The Chiasmus in Alma 36 is one of the most compelling evidences of the truth of the Book of Mormon, and thus also of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Chiasmus is an old Hebrew writing form. The writer says a number of things, then repeats them in reverse order, the center thought being the most important.
Joseph Smith never made mention of the chiasmus in Alma 36. We must assume he didn't even know of it. Having consulted with more official lists, here is where my list is at now.
"My son, give ear to my words." - Verse 1
"Now this is according to his word." - Verse 30
"Inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land." - Verse 1
"Inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land." - Verse 30
"I would that ye should do as I have done." - Verse 2
"For ye ought to know as I do know." - Verse 30
"In remembering the captivity of our fathers." - Verse 2
"Ye ought to retain in remembrance their captivity." -Verse 29
"For they were in bondage." - Verse 2
"Delivered them out of bondage and captivity." - Verse 29
"None could deliver them except it was the God of Abraham." - Verse 2
"He will still deliver me." - Verse 29
"Whosoever shall put their trust in God." - Verse 3
"I do put my trust in him." - Verse 27
"Shall be supported in their trials, and their troubles, and their afflictions." - Verse 3
"I have been supported under trials and troubles of every kind, yea, and in all manner of afflictions." - Verse 27
"Shall be lifted up at the last day." - Verse 3
"He will raise me up at the last day." Verse 28
"I know of myself -- not of the temporal but of the spiritual, not of the carnal mind but of God." - Verse 4
"And the knowledge which I have is of God." - Verse 26
"If I had not been born of God." - Verse 5
"Many have been born of God." - Verse 26
"God has, by the mouth of his holy angel made these things known unto me." Verse 5
"For because of the word which he has imparted unto me." - Verse 26
"Not of any worthiness of myself." - Verse 5
"In the fruit of my labors" - Verse 25
(I might be stretching to include this one, as they are somewhat opposite. Still, they both reflect on his involvement in the process.)
"God sent his angel to stop us by the way." - Verse 6
"Yea, from that time even until now, I have labored without ceasing that I might bring souls unto repentance." - Verse 24
(Both verses refer to the moment he changed.)
"For behold, he spake unto us." - Verse 7
"The word which he has imparted unto me." - Verse 26
"The fear of the Lord came upon us." - Verse 7
"The knowledge which I have is of God." - Verse 26
"I could not open my mouth." - Verse 10
"I . . . did manifest unto the people." - Verse 23
(This one refers to the use of mouth and speaking to God, albeit in one case he couldn't and the other he did.)
"I . . . did manifest unto the people." - Verse 23
(This one refers to the use of mouth and speaking to God, albeit in one case he couldn't and the other he did.)
"Neither had I use of my limbs." - Verse 10
"My limbs did receive their strength again." - Verse 23
"The angel spoke more things unto me." - Verse 11
"Yea, methought I saw, even as our father Lehi saw, God sitting upon his thrown." - Verse 22
(In both cases, he speaks of his vision.)
"My soul was harrowed up." - Verse 12
"I was harrowed up by the memory." - Verse 19
"I did remember all my sins." - Verse 13
"The memory of my sins." - Verse 19
"Pains of a damned soul." - Verse 16
"Joy as exceeding as was my pain." - Verse 20
"Jesus Christ, a son of God." - Verse 17
"Jesus, thou son of God." - Verse 18
These three links might have better listings than mine. I do have others in my list, but they aren't concisely in order and I better conclude this email. The last of these three links is from the church website.
"Jesus, thou son of God." - Verse 18
These three links might have better listings than mine. I do have others in my list, but they aren't concisely in order and I better conclude this email. The last of these three links is from the church website.
Saturday, July 25, 2020
Today's Protests Resemble What Happened in Andrew Jackson's Day
A likeness to the past. In 1835, abolitionists began sending anti-slavery tracts out, calling for justice for Blacks, in essence. Those on the other side of the issue deemed the tracts to be "incendiary," and suggested the movement for Blacks was an effort to "destroy the union." Even so, today, there are those who see the current movement as but an attempt to stir up trouble, and those involved in it are often accused of siding with those who seek anarchy and the destruction of our government.
Just a little something I picked up as I studied Andrew Jackson in Wikipedia.
Just a little something I picked up as I studied Andrew Jackson in Wikipedia.
When This is Considered Justice, a Society has Gone Mad
Police are out in the street, away from his house, yelling, "Drop that knife. Drop it. Drop that knife." The victim, Jovany Mercado-Bedolla, walks casually out onto car port and toward the street, getting as far as the sidewalk before officers unleash a fury of bullets, dropping him dead.
The officers did but as they are trained. When he got within the specified distance, they killed him.
From this person's viewing the video, the killing does not appear to be warranted. He did not say anything threatening. Nor did he brandish his knife as if to use it. He did not even appear to be looking too directly at the officers, but rather was as if in a daze as to what was going on.
Bang, bang, bang. They shot him dead.
Could they have backed up, but continued to keep a bead on him, to see where he headed? Could then have shot him with a taser? Could they have shot to wound, instead of firing multiple shots aimed to kill? From my watching of the video, I can see no reason not to back off, keeping a bead, thus allowing to see where he was headed. You don't kill a person unless you have to, and they didn't have to kill him. There were other options.
Nor should it go unsaid that we have been told officers in Utah are receiving training on how to deal with the mentally impaired. Mercado's composure was consistent with being disoriented, drug-impaired, or that of someone mentally ill. Had the officers actually been trained to recognize such demeanor? And, if so, should not their training have dictated they react differently?
A man is dead. He didn't need to die. He was killed on his own property. His Second Amendment rights say he could bear arms. I repeat, on his own property.
August 16, 2019, Ogden, Utah. Police and the district attorney say it was justified. Twenty bullets fired, 16 hitting the victim.
Many there will be who say the police were justified. I am among those, though, who would suggest we are as a society gone mad. We follow a textbook as to when the law says you should kill instead of being level-headed and realizing it wasn't necessary. When this is considered justice, a society has gone mad.
The officers did but as they are trained. When he got within the specified distance, they killed him.
From this person's viewing the video, the killing does not appear to be warranted. He did not say anything threatening. Nor did he brandish his knife as if to use it. He did not even appear to be looking too directly at the officers, but rather was as if in a daze as to what was going on.
Bang, bang, bang. They shot him dead.
Could they have backed up, but continued to keep a bead on him, to see where he headed? Could then have shot him with a taser? Could they have shot to wound, instead of firing multiple shots aimed to kill? From my watching of the video, I can see no reason not to back off, keeping a bead, thus allowing to see where he was headed. You don't kill a person unless you have to, and they didn't have to kill him. There were other options.
Nor should it go unsaid that we have been told officers in Utah are receiving training on how to deal with the mentally impaired. Mercado's composure was consistent with being disoriented, drug-impaired, or that of someone mentally ill. Had the officers actually been trained to recognize such demeanor? And, if so, should not their training have dictated they react differently?
A man is dead. He didn't need to die. He was killed on his own property. His Second Amendment rights say he could bear arms. I repeat, on his own property.
August 16, 2019, Ogden, Utah. Police and the district attorney say it was justified. Twenty bullets fired, 16 hitting the victim.
Many there will be who say the police were justified. I am among those, though, who would suggest we are as a society gone mad. We follow a textbook as to when the law says you should kill instead of being level-headed and realizing it wasn't necessary. When this is considered justice, a society has gone mad.
Friday, July 24, 2020
Two Scandals in One Day, and the Boat Barely Rocked
In a day before this presidency, perhaps either story would have exploded all over the news. Evidence of crime, graft and corruption by a president should do that. Outrage should fly. Scandal, scandal.
But, in the age of Trump, this was just another day. Two should-be-blockbuster stories rippled the news, but neither busted the seams. I don't know that anyone called for Trump's impeachment.
Tried that, done that, didn't work. So, don't go trying again. You bore me. Quit picking on the president. You're just out to get him.
Story One, In 2018, Trump allegedly asked the ambassador to Britain to get the British Open to be played at Trump Turnberry resort in Scotland. The ambassador's deputy warned against it, pointing out that it would be unethical use of the presidency for private gain.
Trump denied that he asked the ambassador to make such a pitch for him.
Story Two, Michael Cohen was ordered back out of federal confinement by a judge upset with what had sent him back to that confinement. Cohen had tweeted that he was finishing a tell-all book about Trump. About a week later, Cohen's probation officer came along and asked him to sign a nondisclosure agreement that would keep him free. All he had to do was not speak on social media, and not publish the book against Trump. A gag agreement, then. It amounted to, Don't disparage the president or we will send you straight back to jail.
"I've never seen such a clause in 21 years of being a judge and sentencing people," the judge who freed Cohen said. "How can I take any other inference but that it was retaliatory?"
Has ever in America's history a person been sent to jail for disparaging the president? We are not talking of revealing classified information, here. We are just talking of saying disparaging things about the president. Freedom of speech? freedom of the press? The right to criticize government? These are our among our most fundamental freedoms. In America -- circa 2016 and earlier -- this wouldn't have happened.
Then came Trump.
But, in the age of Trump, this was just another day. Two should-be-blockbuster stories rippled the news, but neither busted the seams. I don't know that anyone called for Trump's impeachment.
Tried that, done that, didn't work. So, don't go trying again. You bore me. Quit picking on the president. You're just out to get him.
Story One, In 2018, Trump allegedly asked the ambassador to Britain to get the British Open to be played at Trump Turnberry resort in Scotland. The ambassador's deputy warned against it, pointing out that it would be unethical use of the presidency for private gain.
Trump denied that he asked the ambassador to make such a pitch for him.
Story Two, Michael Cohen was ordered back out of federal confinement by a judge upset with what had sent him back to that confinement. Cohen had tweeted that he was finishing a tell-all book about Trump. About a week later, Cohen's probation officer came along and asked him to sign a nondisclosure agreement that would keep him free. All he had to do was not speak on social media, and not publish the book against Trump. A gag agreement, then. It amounted to, Don't disparage the president or we will send you straight back to jail.
"I've never seen such a clause in 21 years of being a judge and sentencing people," the judge who freed Cohen said. "How can I take any other inference but that it was retaliatory?"
Has ever in America's history a person been sent to jail for disparaging the president? We are not talking of revealing classified information, here. We are just talking of saying disparaging things about the president. Freedom of speech? freedom of the press? The right to criticize government? These are our among our most fundamental freedoms. In America -- circa 2016 and earlier -- this wouldn't have happened.
Then came Trump.
At the First Available Juncture, Police Should Reassure Those Who Flee
At the first available juncture, you try to talk the situation down. This, perhaps, is what needs to be learned from all the police violence in America.
Teach officers this, and it should make a difference.
I think of Bernardo Palacios here in Salt Lake City, and of how he turned and ran from the police. This, then, was a time the police could have been reassuring. "Sir!" they could have yelled. "Let us help you. Stop, and let us just talk."
Palacios was spooked, scared. He feared the police. We speak of de-escalation training for those with mental situations? Spooked and scared and not thinking straight, do we not realize Palacios's situation was not so different? If you don't use your deescalation training they gave you when confronted with Bernardo, all the training you have received is doing you no good.
Supposing there had been such training covering situations such as that of Palacios.
If we are not training officers to deescalate, this problem of police violence will never go away. They need to be peace officers, not just police officers.
Teach officers this, and it should make a difference.
I think of Bernardo Palacios here in Salt Lake City, and of how he turned and ran from the police. This, then, was a time the police could have been reassuring. "Sir!" they could have yelled. "Let us help you. Stop, and let us just talk."
Palacios was spooked, scared. He feared the police. We speak of de-escalation training for those with mental situations? Spooked and scared and not thinking straight, do we not realize Palacios's situation was not so different? If you don't use your deescalation training they gave you when confronted with Bernardo, all the training you have received is doing you no good.
Supposing there had been such training covering situations such as that of Palacios.
If we are not training officers to deescalate, this problem of police violence will never go away. They need to be peace officers, not just police officers.
Thursday, July 23, 2020
If We Give Trump the Authority Despots Have, What Will Happen?
To avoid despotism, never invest too much authority in any one leader. We have a Constitution that breathes this understanding, but we would do well to follow that Constitution better.
If the president can make all appointments completely on his own, and enter treaties entirely at his own discretion, and enter wars without asking anyone's permission, his power is -- well -- absolute. We have heard our president use that term, "absolute." We have also heard him suggest he is the chief law enforcement officer in the land, as he wanders into affairs of the judicial branch.
The Constitution says appointments and treaties and declarations of war need approval of the Senate. Thus, there is a check against an authoritarian government gaining foothold in America. But, if we do not follow that Constitution, an authoritarian government might, indeed, gain foothold.
If the president can make all appointments completely on his own, and enter treaties entirely at his own discretion, and enter wars without asking anyone's permission, his power is -- well -- absolute. We have heard our president use that term, "absolute." We have also heard him suggest he is the chief law enforcement officer in the land, as he wanders into affairs of the judicial branch.
The Constitution says appointments and treaties and declarations of war need approval of the Senate. Thus, there is a check against an authoritarian government gaining foothold in America. But, if we do not follow that Constitution, an authoritarian government might, indeed, gain foothold.
Teach Them to be Peace Officers, Not Just Police Officers
Teach the police to make peace, to seek peaceful resolutions. If Rayshard Brooks says he just needs to go home because he is drunk, offer him a ride, or ask him if someone can come get him. He suggested to police he should have such help, but police didn't take him up on it.
Whenever you can resolve an issue, do it. Deescalation means satisfying the other party when it is within justice to do so. It means looking to avoid violence whenever you can. It means recognizing the other party is going to be scared of you, and you need to reassuring that you want to help them if you can. It means, the longer you let a situation foment, the higher emotions will become, the more frazzled nerves will be. Think of Rayshard Brooks, and how long the situation simmered before exploding.
Deescalation means talking a problem down, not working it up.
Deescalation? It certainly doesn't mean kneeling on the neck of the person you are arresting for eight-and-a-half minutes. Derek Chauvin should be asked what the deescalation training measures he was given for a situation such as he faced with George Floyd. Or, was there no deescalation training for such a situation?
If we are not training officers to deescalate, this problem of police violence will never go away. They need to be peace officers, not just police officers.
(Blog shortened 11/24/20 and much of the material moved to a new blog. I still do not feel I have expressed myself clearly enough, so yet another attempt is likely.)
Whenever you can resolve an issue, do it. Deescalation means satisfying the other party when it is within justice to do so. It means looking to avoid violence whenever you can. It means recognizing the other party is going to be scared of you, and you need to reassuring that you want to help them if you can. It means, the longer you let a situation foment, the higher emotions will become, the more frazzled nerves will be. Think of Rayshard Brooks, and how long the situation simmered before exploding.
Deescalation means talking a problem down, not working it up.
Deescalation? It certainly doesn't mean kneeling on the neck of the person you are arresting for eight-and-a-half minutes. Derek Chauvin should be asked what the deescalation training measures he was given for a situation such as he faced with George Floyd. Or, was there no deescalation training for such a situation?
If we are not training officers to deescalate, this problem of police violence will never go away. They need to be peace officers, not just police officers.
(Blog shortened 11/24/20 and much of the material moved to a new blog. I still do not feel I have expressed myself clearly enough, so yet another attempt is likely.)
Wednesday, July 22, 2020
Is the Right to Hire, the Right to Fire?
If the Constitution limits your authority to hire ranking officials, does it limit your authority to fire them, as well?
The president is to counsel with the Senate in making appointments. And, going beyond just needing to counsel, he is required to get the consent of the Senate.
The Constitution does not speak specifically of firings. But, if the right to fire is equal to the right to hire, then it follows that those firings should also be approved by the Senate.
The president is to counsel with the Senate in making appointments. And, going beyond just needing to counsel, he is required to get the consent of the Senate.
The Constitution does not speak specifically of firings. But, if the right to fire is equal to the right to hire, then it follows that those firings should also be approved by the Senate.
Guns to Defend Means Guns to Settle Disputes
If guns are going to be our answer for defending ourselves, we are going to need to wear them around all day. Your chances of being murdered are not just in your home, where you have your gun. No, if the gun is to protect us, we have to pack.
Talk about the militarization of America. Shall we not think what will happen if everyone packs? Every time a heated dispute breaks out, the gun is there to settle it. And, you think there won't be more murders? The thought defies logic.
Talk about the militarization of America. Shall we not think what will happen if everyone packs? Every time a heated dispute breaks out, the gun is there to settle it. And, you think there won't be more murders? The thought defies logic.
Tuesday, July 21, 2020
President Trump Abuses the Appointments Clause of Constitution
I am not scholar enough to know how much abuse there has been by past presidents, but President Trump has abused the appointments clause of the Constitution, and I do wonder but what he hasn't exceeded the abuse of past presidents.
The Constitution having value, and the form of government it establishes having value, we should not take this lightly. The Constitution went at least a little ways towards taking "cronies" out of government. So, you want to surround yourself with those who are personally loyal to you to a greater degree than is prudent? Sorry, but the Constitution provides some defense against that. Incestuous politics, if we can use the term, are not wanted.
The Constitution says the president shall nominate and appoint the officers of the land "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." Ambassadors and public ministers are among those who need approval by the Senate.
In contrast, President Trump installed Ken Cuccinelli as acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Mark Morgan as acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement without getting Senate approval. Matthew Whitaker was installed as acting attorney general without approval. Chad Wolf has been "acting" secretary of the Department of Homeland Security since November, 2019. He was confirmed to be undersecretary, but not to be secretary. There may be others, as I am not up to speed on all those who have not received Congressional approval.
I do wonder about Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband, Jared Kushner, who are advisors to the president. Ivanka has a chief of staff, which indicates she is an officer over somewhat of a department. Does not that make her senior-enough of an official to need Senate approval? Should not her husband also have needed Senate approval? He has been involved in peace discussions with other countries. If the Constitution says ambassadors need approval, what he is doing puts him in the same category.
Cronyism in America should be avoided, when it can be. The Constitution can be a shield against it. Do we, then, insist that we adhere to the appointments clause? Yes, for this is part of upholding the Constitution.
(Note: Some rewording done 7/22/20)
The Constitution having value, and the form of government it establishes having value, we should not take this lightly. The Constitution went at least a little ways towards taking "cronies" out of government. So, you want to surround yourself with those who are personally loyal to you to a greater degree than is prudent? Sorry, but the Constitution provides some defense against that. Incestuous politics, if we can use the term, are not wanted.
The Constitution says the president shall nominate and appoint the officers of the land "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." Ambassadors and public ministers are among those who need approval by the Senate.
In contrast, President Trump installed Ken Cuccinelli as acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Mark Morgan as acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement without getting Senate approval. Matthew Whitaker was installed as acting attorney general without approval. Chad Wolf has been "acting" secretary of the Department of Homeland Security since November, 2019. He was confirmed to be undersecretary, but not to be secretary. There may be others, as I am not up to speed on all those who have not received Congressional approval.
I do wonder about Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband, Jared Kushner, who are advisors to the president. Ivanka has a chief of staff, which indicates she is an officer over somewhat of a department. Does not that make her senior-enough of an official to need Senate approval? Should not her husband also have needed Senate approval? He has been involved in peace discussions with other countries. If the Constitution says ambassadors need approval, what he is doing puts him in the same category.
Cronyism in America should be avoided, when it can be. The Constitution can be a shield against it. Do we, then, insist that we adhere to the appointments clause? Yes, for this is part of upholding the Constitution.
(Note: Some rewording done 7/22/20)
Monday, July 20, 2020
Government is Ripe for Corruption When it Hides What it is Doing
That government will be ripe for corruption that doesn't let the people see what it is doing. State secrets can be no more than deep state. We should be wary of the nondisclosure agreements, and of the classified documents that riddle our government. Wickedness is protected by those sworn to silence.
Instead of worrying so much about leaks to the press, we should be worried if there are none. What is it that government has to hide?
Instead of worrying so much about leaks to the press, we should be worried if there are none. What is it that government has to hide?
Sunday, July 19, 2020
Such Unmarked Vans and Detentions Only Serve to Escalate Violence
Whatever other factors there were in the ratcheting up of violence in Portland this weekend, we may not know. But, it can seem certain that if you give someone cause to think violence from them is justified, they will likely to go there.
President Trump did no favors by deploying Border Patrol agents who, it is said, captured and detained those who were not committing violence nor breaking laws, hauling them away in vans. Yes, shutter to think such arrests could happen in America. But, also consider on how such things will bring citizens to feel justified in responding with violence.
President Trump did no favors by deploying Border Patrol agents who, it is said, captured and detained those who were not committing violence nor breaking laws, hauling them away in vans. Yes, shutter to think such arrests could happen in America. But, also consider on how such things will bring citizens to feel justified in responding with violence.
Saturday, July 18, 2020
The High Cost of Drugs is Underlined by the Drug Eliquis
The drug I bought today, Eliquis, which is a blood thinner, cost $500. After both Medicare and my supplemental insurance pitched in, I was left to pay only $25.
The point is, we as a nation still haven't solved the high price of drugs. Someone paid the rest of the $500, even though I was spared. How to correct the high price of medicine? There would seem to be two ways to do it, and we should pick one of the two paths and go down it. One, allow competition. Two, put a cap on the price; establish that a month's supply of no drug shall be more than, say, $100.
Eliquis was a joint venture between Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) and Pfizer. It is such a profitable venture for BMS that in late 2019, it accounted for 30 percent of BMS's quarterly sales.
But, here's an interesting and perhaps telling tidbit I just learned on Wikipedia: In December, the FDA approved a generic version, which is produced jointly by Mylan an Micro Labs. This means my doctor probably knowingly prescribed Eliquis to me knowing that a generic version would save a mass amount of money. Bottom line: Our medical providers may be knowingly directing us to the expensive drugs to serve the pharmaceutical makers. We should ask why? Are the pharmaceutical companies providing them kickbacks? Perhaps not, but we should definitely be asking that question. Whatever the reason doctors are still prescribing the BMS-Pfizer drug over the Mylan-Micro Labs version needs to be uncovered.
The point is, we as a nation still haven't solved the high price of drugs. Someone paid the rest of the $500, even though I was spared. How to correct the high price of medicine? There would seem to be two ways to do it, and we should pick one of the two paths and go down it. One, allow competition. Two, put a cap on the price; establish that a month's supply of no drug shall be more than, say, $100.
Eliquis was a joint venture between Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) and Pfizer. It is such a profitable venture for BMS that in late 2019, it accounted for 30 percent of BMS's quarterly sales.
But, here's an interesting and perhaps telling tidbit I just learned on Wikipedia: In December, the FDA approved a generic version, which is produced jointly by Mylan an Micro Labs. This means my doctor probably knowingly prescribed Eliquis to me knowing that a generic version would save a mass amount of money. Bottom line: Our medical providers may be knowingly directing us to the expensive drugs to serve the pharmaceutical makers. We should ask why? Are the pharmaceutical companies providing them kickbacks? Perhaps not, but we should definitely be asking that question. Whatever the reason doctors are still prescribing the BMS-Pfizer drug over the Mylan-Micro Labs version needs to be uncovered.
Drug Transaction Went Sour, and Edwin Reyes was Shot
The drug transaction went sour. The man they were selling to was shot. The sellers faced a list of charges, but not murder.
The June 28 killing was ruled by the DA to be self defense. I do not know for certain if the Stand Your Ground law was invoked, but it seems possible. The law says that if you believe you are in danger, you are justified in using deadly force. Perhaps the investigation showed Adrian Kordell Emanuel McCleary, 22, Taylorsville, and Saivontre Isiah Jordan Spillers, 25, West Valley, were indeed acting in self defense. Or, perhaps the investigation didn't need to establish that, it only needed to establish that they claimed they were in jeopardy. With Stand Your Ground, you only need to say you believed you were in endangered.
The man killed, Edwin B. Reyes, 17, is not alive to testify, obviously, so his side of the story cannot be so easily determined. So it is in Stand Your Ground cases, if you say you believed you were endangered, that is the end of the matter, there is no questioning what you say.
Another thing of interest to me in this case is that if McCleary and Spillers were selling illegal drugs, that is a crime. There is a law that says that if you are in the commission of a crime, and someone dies, you can be charged with murder. That law was not invoked.
Friday, July 17, 2020
America Squandered its Chance to Flip Venezuela from Socialism
Perhaps America squandered its opportunity to change the government in Venezuela. When Juan Guaido burst upon the scene in January of 2019, declaring himself president, we had our chance. The country was reeling in poverty, and still is. Had President Trump flooded the country with charity relief, or rather gave the food to Guaido to give to his people in his name, Guaido would have been a hero for saving the nation.
The U.S. should have done everything it could to reestablish Venezuela's economy at that time, and have done it all it the name of Juan Guaido.
Instead, President Trump went the opposite direction, slamming economic sanctions on Venezuela. a people who were already poor probably were only hurt worse by those sanctions. When you have no charity for the people, you will have your day of reckoning.
The U.S. should have done everything it could to reestablish Venezuela's economy at that time, and have done it all it the name of Juan Guaido.
Instead, President Trump went the opposite direction, slamming economic sanctions on Venezuela. a people who were already poor probably were only hurt worse by those sanctions. When you have no charity for the people, you will have your day of reckoning.
This Would Increase Security of Main-in Ballots
With note of the conviction of a West Virginia postman for altering mail-in ballots, we should consider what we could do to mitigate such danger.
There is a way. Have a bar code, if you would consider it that, covering the entirety of the ballot envelope. If the envelope is breached in any place, the bar code is disturbed, broken. When the ballot arrives at election headquarters, before it is opened to be counted, a scanner machine scans it to see if it has been breached.
This is one way we could improve the security of our elections.
There is a way. Have a bar code, if you would consider it that, covering the entirety of the ballot envelope. If the envelope is breached in any place, the bar code is disturbed, broken. When the ballot arrives at election headquarters, before it is opened to be counted, a scanner machine scans it to see if it has been breached.
This is one way we could improve the security of our elections.
The Pledge of Two Allegiances
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the two states of America, and to the Republic, which is divided, two nations under God, thus divisible, with liberty and justice not the proper concern at all.
I do not endorse the above pledge, but say it is what we have become. A Democrat would not pledge allegiance to a Republican administration, nor a Republican to a Democrat-ruled country.
I do not endorse the above pledge, but say it is what we have become. A Democrat would not pledge allegiance to a Republican administration, nor a Republican to a Democrat-ruled country.
--
Thursday, July 16, 2020
Venezuela -- You Don't Win the People by Starving Them
Venezuela -- you don't win the people by starving them. The U.S. has imposed sanctions on the poverty-stricken nation. We look from afar, wondering what is happening. Did conditions that were already the worst in the nation's history only get worse when the U.S. imposed economic sanctions? Did we starve just the government, or is it affecting the people?
Because elections are rolling around come December. If we have given Nicolas Maduro ammunition to paint the U.S. as the enemy, we have done no good. If the U.S. has harmed the people, who will they rally to?
Maduro.
Because elections are rolling around come December. If we have given Nicolas Maduro ammunition to paint the U.S. as the enemy, we have done no good. If the U.S. has harmed the people, who will they rally to?
Maduro.
Wednesday, July 15, 2020
Five Elements Determining if a Government Prospers a Nation
Shall it be a socialistic government, or a democracy? Often it is not the type of government, but the decisions that are made that determine whether a country prospers. Good people making good decisions lifts a nation. Bad people making bad ones leads a nation down.
There are at least a half-dozen elements determining if you have a good or bad government:
1.) Pride of ownership and incentive to work. The capitalistic government offers these.
2.) The wiseness of decisions made, as discussed above.
3.) The amount of corruption that syphons off money. The pursuit of corruption can also distract the leaders from doing their governing.
4.) The distribution of money. Does the money go all to the wealthy, or does it reach the lower members of the society?
5.) Government expense. I hesitate on this one. I look at the huge deficit our nation has run up, and yet we have remained a prosperous nation. Still, I believe too much government can hinder prosperity. High taxes obviously take money from the people, and that reduces the prosperity of the populace.
6.) The righteousness of the leaders. They will be more inclined to make wise decisions, they will be more directed by the Lord, and they will influence the people to work and be industrious. They will also be mindful of the poor. In the words from the Bible, "Righteousness exalteth a nation." (Proverbs 14:34)
There are at least a half-dozen elements determining if you have a good or bad government:
1.) Pride of ownership and incentive to work. The capitalistic government offers these.
2.) The wiseness of decisions made, as discussed above.
3.) The amount of corruption that syphons off money. The pursuit of corruption can also distract the leaders from doing their governing.
4.) The distribution of money. Does the money go all to the wealthy, or does it reach the lower members of the society?
5.) Government expense. I hesitate on this one. I look at the huge deficit our nation has run up, and yet we have remained a prosperous nation. Still, I believe too much government can hinder prosperity. High taxes obviously take money from the people, and that reduces the prosperity of the populace.
6.) The righteousness of the leaders. They will be more inclined to make wise decisions, they will be more directed by the Lord, and they will influence the people to work and be industrious. They will also be mindful of the poor. In the words from the Bible, "Righteousness exalteth a nation." (Proverbs 14:34)
Tuesday, July 14, 2020
Corruption has Led to Venezuela's Downfall, as Much as Anything
Venezuela is forever cited as an example why socialism does not work. But, it is perhaps corruption that has led to the country's downfall, as much as anything.
What corruption?
Think of President Nicolas Maduro's three stepsons and others, involved in a network of bribery and money laundering that has taken money from the people through a fee-for-food distribution program known as the CLAP.
Think of Maduro and his associates and their theft and embezzlement of billions of dollars through drug smuggling and illicit removal of gold from the Venezuelan Central Bank.
Think of Maduro's cranking up the central bank printing presses, thus devaluing the money supply, while the money printed served to support himself and his associates.
Think of how he allowed the infrastructure and oil production facilities to deteriorate while the money that should have been spent on them went for his personal gain.
Was the collapse of Venezuela due to socialism? Strong argument remains. Still, realizing much of the decline of the nation was due to corruption makes it wrong to look at where Venezuela has ended up and blame it all on socialism.
(Note: Blog edited and the last paragraph added 7/15/20)
What corruption?
Think of President Nicolas Maduro's three stepsons and others, involved in a network of bribery and money laundering that has taken money from the people through a fee-for-food distribution program known as the CLAP.
Think of Maduro and his associates and their theft and embezzlement of billions of dollars through drug smuggling and illicit removal of gold from the Venezuelan Central Bank.
Think of Maduro's cranking up the central bank printing presses, thus devaluing the money supply, while the money printed served to support himself and his associates.
Think of how he allowed the infrastructure and oil production facilities to deteriorate while the money that should have been spent on them went for his personal gain.
Was the collapse of Venezuela due to socialism? Strong argument remains. Still, realizing much of the decline of the nation was due to corruption makes it wrong to look at where Venezuela has ended up and blame it all on socialism.
(Note: Blog edited and the last paragraph added 7/15/20)
Washington Would have Kept Departments from Mixing so Much
For good principles of good government, turn to none other than George Washington for instruction.
And, wonder what he would have thought of too many cabinet meetings, or of overlapping responsibilities.
Where does the State Department leave off and the Defense Department take up? What falls under the Department of Homeland Security and how broad of an umbrella does the national security officer have?
I wonder what Washington, the person, would have thought of today's Washington, the government?
"It is important," he said in his farewell address, ". . . that . . . a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another."
If he were alive today, perhaps we could rush into his classroom, and he, as teacher, would snap us back into line.
"The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism," he warned.
"A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position," he said.
In other words, if one department head can find its way into another department, it will. The "love of power" will bring them to try to sway their influence where they ought not.
Washington suggested dividing the government into different "depositaries," "To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them," he said, meaning (I'm sure) that we should not allow this division of responsibilities to be removed.
But, look at the Washington -- the government -- of today: Meetings that mix the different departments? Yes, we have that all the time. And, 16 cabinet positions . . . and another seven cabinet-level offices? You know they are overlapping, getting into each other's work.
Washington felt so strongly about the division of departments that he suggested that if things went awry, then we should correct them "by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates."
Then, the next part of what he says, I wonder at: "But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in the one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Was he suggesting that the president not just arbitrarily make the change, for that "is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed?" Or, was he simply saying that one department should not usurp power from another?
Or, both.
I think on this, and note that if a president can create whatever offices and departments and responsibilities he will, he can expand on his own authority. It is of interest, then, that with only a limited number of exceptions, all offices of the U.S. are subject to the approval of the Senate.
And, wonder what he would have thought of too many cabinet meetings, or of overlapping responsibilities.
Where does the State Department leave off and the Defense Department take up? What falls under the Department of Homeland Security and how broad of an umbrella does the national security officer have?
I wonder what Washington, the person, would have thought of today's Washington, the government?
"It is important," he said in his farewell address, ". . . that . . . a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another."
If he were alive today, perhaps we could rush into his classroom, and he, as teacher, would snap us back into line.
"The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all departments into one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism," he warned.
"A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position," he said.
In other words, if one department head can find its way into another department, it will. The "love of power" will bring them to try to sway their influence where they ought not.
Washington suggested dividing the government into different "depositaries," "To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them," he said, meaning (I'm sure) that we should not allow this division of responsibilities to be removed.
But, look at the Washington -- the government -- of today: Meetings that mix the different departments? Yes, we have that all the time. And, 16 cabinet positions . . . and another seven cabinet-level offices? You know they are overlapping, getting into each other's work.
Washington felt so strongly about the division of departments that he suggested that if things went awry, then we should correct them "by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates."
Then, the next part of what he says, I wonder at: "But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in the one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Was he suggesting that the president not just arbitrarily make the change, for that "is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed?" Or, was he simply saying that one department should not usurp power from another?
Or, both.
I think on this, and note that if a president can create whatever offices and departments and responsibilities he will, he can expand on his own authority. It is of interest, then, that with only a limited number of exceptions, all offices of the U.S. are subject to the approval of the Senate.
Monday, July 13, 2020
Bernardo had His Chances to Shoot, and Never did
They shot Bernardo Palacios dead because they felt he was too dangerous to be left alive. They say, if he got around one more corner, he might shoot and kill someone. Or, even more likely, he might at any moment he might shoot one of the officers giving him chase.
There is ample evidence, though, that he had no intention of shooting anyone. The very unfolding of events showed he had multiple opportunities to shoot, but never did. Let's cite four chances that he wasted. Let's look at what happened that night and realize he had four opportunities to shoot, but each time chose not to.
1.) At the motel when he was robbing. He did "pistol whip" one person, but he didn't fire the gun.
2.) As he fled, he could have swung into the Trails night club parking lot, where there were "a ton of people" and shot someone. He didn't.
3.) When Sgt. Schneider arrived, he says Bernardo ran right by him. We don't know whether Bernardo noticed Sgt. Schneider, but it would seem if he were running right by someone in a police uniform, he would have noticed. That would be an opportunity to shoot. He didn't.
4. During the course of the chase, he never turned and shot. Nor did he so much as wildly shoot back over his shoulder as he fled. Officers maintain he pointed the gun at them. It would seem if he did in fact point the gun at them, then that would be the natural moment to pull the trigger. If you are intent on shooting someone, once you point the gun, you pull the trigger. Isn't that the way it goes? He never did. He never shot at the police.
With him wasting four opportunities to shoot, why do we can't we see he showed no intention of shooting the officers?
There is ample evidence, though, that he had no intention of shooting anyone. The very unfolding of events showed he had multiple opportunities to shoot, but never did. Let's cite four chances that he wasted. Let's look at what happened that night and realize he had four opportunities to shoot, but each time chose not to.
1.) At the motel when he was robbing. He did "pistol whip" one person, but he didn't fire the gun.
2.) As he fled, he could have swung into the Trails night club parking lot, where there were "a ton of people" and shot someone. He didn't.
3.) When Sgt. Schneider arrived, he says Bernardo ran right by him. We don't know whether Bernardo noticed Sgt. Schneider, but it would seem if he were running right by someone in a police uniform, he would have noticed. That would be an opportunity to shoot. He didn't.
4. During the course of the chase, he never turned and shot. Nor did he so much as wildly shoot back over his shoulder as he fled. Officers maintain he pointed the gun at them. It would seem if he did in fact point the gun at them, then that would be the natural moment to pull the trigger. If you are intent on shooting someone, once you point the gun, you pull the trigger. Isn't that the way it goes? He never did. He never shot at the police.
With him wasting four opportunities to shoot, why do we can't we see he showed no intention of shooting the officers?
Sunday, July 12, 2020
Was the Investigation Into the Killing of Bernardo Palacios One-Sided?
District Attorney Sim Gill this past week ruled that the police officers who killed Bernardo Palacios should not be brought to trial. A little bit of rioting resulted, and the governor called a state of emergency.
I do not agree with the rioters for rioting. I appreciate that many of them were carted off to jail.
But, I have not let go of the notion that it was wrong to kill Bernardo. I am still considering that, but so far I hold to the opinion the killing was wrongful.
I have also come to believe Gill did not look at what happened through both the lens of both sides of the story. This conclusion I draw from having listened to his press conference, when he announced his verdict, announced his decision.
He showed the videos of the shooting, taking us step-by-step through what the officers were doing, and why they were doing it. With each movement of the officers, he explains what their thinking was. He drew on them for his explanations, having interviewed Officer Iversen and such. Officer Iversen was even allowed to have his legal counsel involved.
But, Gill doesn't even conjecture on what might have been going through Bernardo's mind. He doesn't conjecture to say, "In his defense, Mr. Palacios might have been thinking (thus and such)."
If he examines the thinking behind what the officers' each movement was, should he not also consider the reasoning that might have been in Bernardo's mind as he fled, and as he tripped and fell, and as he picked the gun up again, and as he moved his arms while lying on the ground after being shot?
Do we consider that all Bernardo's motives were bad -- do we assume that? -- or do we consider both sides of the story?
I have said, just above, that Gill even allowed an attorney for Iversen to have some involvement in the case. What about legal representation for the other side of the case, then? Was an attorney for the family of Bernardo Palacios brought into the case?
Sim Gill is the prosecutor, not the defense attorney. His first obligation is to fully consider the merits of prosecuting, as opposed to just gathering evidence for the defense.
I do not agree with the rioters for rioting. I appreciate that many of them were carted off to jail.
But, I have not let go of the notion that it was wrong to kill Bernardo. I am still considering that, but so far I hold to the opinion the killing was wrongful.
I have also come to believe Gill did not look at what happened through both the lens of both sides of the story. This conclusion I draw from having listened to his press conference, when he announced his verdict, announced his decision.
He showed the videos of the shooting, taking us step-by-step through what the officers were doing, and why they were doing it. With each movement of the officers, he explains what their thinking was. He drew on them for his explanations, having interviewed Officer Iversen and such. Officer Iversen was even allowed to have his legal counsel involved.
But, Gill doesn't even conjecture on what might have been going through Bernardo's mind. He doesn't conjecture to say, "In his defense, Mr. Palacios might have been thinking (thus and such)."
If he examines the thinking behind what the officers' each movement was, should he not also consider the reasoning that might have been in Bernardo's mind as he fled, and as he tripped and fell, and as he picked the gun up again, and as he moved his arms while lying on the ground after being shot?
Do we consider that all Bernardo's motives were bad -- do we assume that? -- or do we consider both sides of the story?
I have said, just above, that Gill even allowed an attorney for Iversen to have some involvement in the case. What about legal representation for the other side of the case, then? Was an attorney for the family of Bernardo Palacios brought into the case?
Sim Gill is the prosecutor, not the defense attorney. His first obligation is to fully consider the merits of prosecuting, as opposed to just gathering evidence for the defense.
Saturday, July 11, 2020
To Me, the Promise of the Gospel is not that We can't, but that We can
It is said that perfection cannot be attained in this life. To me, though, the promise of the gospel is not that we can't, but that we can. Rather than saying, You can't do that, so don't even try, I believe in a gospel that says, If Christ did it, then so can you. Christ may have achieved perfection on his first shot, so to speak. For us, it will take many, many shots before we get there.
I love the Savior for his example. He came to earth and lived a spotless life, providing us with an example that it can be done, showing us that it is possible. If one Person can do it, why not others? He told us that we should attempt to be like Him. "What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am," says a scripture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (3 Nephi 27:27). What manner of Man was He? He was perfect. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," says Matthew 5:48, and though the word "perfect" would more precisely have been translated, "complete," "finished," or "fully developed," I don't know that that makes a difference. How complete, finished, or fully developed was the Savior? Even to the point of being perfect.
Does He ask me to be like Him? I don't rush off, saying that is too much. Rather, I thank Him for pushing me forward. I thank Him for having such faith in me.
To me, the glory of the gospel is knowing that I can be as complete and as finished as the Savior. I can be perfect. Some would tell me it isn't possible, I believe the gospel is telling me I can. There is nothing so wonderful as this, the very Lord telling me I can be perfect.
In some ways, it is like a coach telling a kid he can grow up and play in the Super Bowl and win it. Another coach might come along and say, Hey, kid, it can't be done. Don't even try. You'll just beat yourself up trying, and end up frustrated.
I don't see Christ as that coach. I see Him as a Coach who says I can.
I love the Savior for his example. He came to earth and lived a spotless life, providing us with an example that it can be done, showing us that it is possible. If one Person can do it, why not others? He told us that we should attempt to be like Him. "What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am," says a scripture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (3 Nephi 27:27). What manner of Man was He? He was perfect. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," says Matthew 5:48, and though the word "perfect" would more precisely have been translated, "complete," "finished," or "fully developed," I don't know that that makes a difference. How complete, finished, or fully developed was the Savior? Even to the point of being perfect.
Does He ask me to be like Him? I don't rush off, saying that is too much. Rather, I thank Him for pushing me forward. I thank Him for having such faith in me.
To me, the glory of the gospel is knowing that I can be as complete and as finished as the Savior. I can be perfect. Some would tell me it isn't possible, I believe the gospel is telling me I can. There is nothing so wonderful as this, the very Lord telling me I can be perfect.
In some ways, it is like a coach telling a kid he can grow up and play in the Super Bowl and win it. Another coach might come along and say, Hey, kid, it can't be done. Don't even try. You'll just beat yourself up trying, and end up frustrated.
I don't see Christ as that coach. I see Him as a Coach who says I can.
Utah Ties as the Worst State for Black People Being Killed by Police
No state in the union has a higher percentage of its Black people killed by police than does Utah. So says a comparison compiled by WeTheProtesters, Inc. Utah ties with Alaska for the worst record.
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/states?fbclid=IwAR2NgY-HwDYnbjo0YAQ0_nDuRVTEVQHeKrv83NXxdgS1lGY0Ia1mBIFGkt4
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/states?fbclid=IwAR2NgY-HwDYnbjo0YAQ0_nDuRVTEVQHeKrv83NXxdgS1lGY0Ia1mBIFGkt4
Friday, July 10, 2020
Washington Warned Against Such Entanglements, Yet We Have Them
As I read John Bolton's book tonight, I thought of George Washington in his farewell address, where he warned against foreign entanglements.
"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
"Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies."
In his book, Bolton tells how he was successful in extracting the U.S. from an arms agreement with Russia, an agreement that Russia wasn't living up to, and yet the U.S. was obligated to, an agreement that had been affected by the passage of time and coming of greater technology.
Bolton then listed a number of other treaties he thought should be done away with.
The phrase, "foreign entanglements," came to my mind, and I looked up Washington's speech.
As I read from the speech, I think I understand what Washington meant when he says, "honesty is always the best policy." He was perhaps suggesting that we always just treat our foreign-nation friends honesty and fairly, without need of contract.
And, note how he allows for "temporary alliances." If the hour calls for a treaty, bring it on, but do not let it be long-lived.
I also thought on how a labyrinth of agreements can be hard to keep track of, requiring a lawyer just to keep you abreast of all the things you've agreed to do. I thought of the workload and bureaucracy brought on by these foreign entanglements.
I thought of how the day comes, when there is a need to operate in a way the alliance does not allow. Yet you cannot because you are bound by that alliance.
And, I thought on how hard it can be to verify that the other side is fulfilling their part. I thought of the Iran nuclear deal, and the North Korea nuclear deal. Lines in the sand? Sometimes the agreements are just words in the sand. And, sand will always blow away.
So, bless that George Washington, for giving us wise advice, advice that we should hail back to in this age when treaties and alliances are the stuff with which governments are made of. I even wonder at these entanglements in terms not just of our defense agreements, but also of our trade agreements.
"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
"Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies."
In his book, Bolton tells how he was successful in extracting the U.S. from an arms agreement with Russia, an agreement that Russia wasn't living up to, and yet the U.S. was obligated to, an agreement that had been affected by the passage of time and coming of greater technology.
Bolton then listed a number of other treaties he thought should be done away with.
The phrase, "foreign entanglements," came to my mind, and I looked up Washington's speech.
As I read from the speech, I think I understand what Washington meant when he says, "honesty is always the best policy." He was perhaps suggesting that we always just treat our foreign-nation friends honesty and fairly, without need of contract.
And, note how he allows for "temporary alliances." If the hour calls for a treaty, bring it on, but do not let it be long-lived.
I also thought on how a labyrinth of agreements can be hard to keep track of, requiring a lawyer just to keep you abreast of all the things you've agreed to do. I thought of the workload and bureaucracy brought on by these foreign entanglements.
I thought of how the day comes, when there is a need to operate in a way the alliance does not allow. Yet you cannot because you are bound by that alliance.
And, I thought on how hard it can be to verify that the other side is fulfilling their part. I thought of the Iran nuclear deal, and the North Korea nuclear deal. Lines in the sand? Sometimes the agreements are just words in the sand. And, sand will always blow away.
So, bless that George Washington, for giving us wise advice, advice that we should hail back to in this age when treaties and alliances are the stuff with which governments are made of. I even wonder at these entanglements in terms not just of our defense agreements, but also of our trade agreements.
Thursday, July 9, 2020
The Secrets of Society Lay Within the Walls of a Prison
If you would but gander inside your prison walls, you would unlock the secrets of your society. Or, many of them.
Look at the man in the far cell, a drug addict. Could you but study him and find out why he turned to drugs?
The prostitute over there, is she here because she found no other way to make a living?
How many of these people came from broken homes? How many are second- or third-generation criminals, a parent having led them them astray? How many were scarred by the hatred of others?
How many listened to violent music and how many listened to Beethoven? How many went to violent movies, and how many stayed home and watched Andy Griffith?
How many were raised on love? How many were raised on religion? And, the ones who were raised on religion, why did they go astray?
Yes, the secrets of society lay within the walls of a prison. Do your study, and you will learn how to empty it. Well, some.
Look at the man in the far cell, a drug addict. Could you but study him and find out why he turned to drugs?
The prostitute over there, is she here because she found no other way to make a living?
How many of these people came from broken homes? How many are second- or third-generation criminals, a parent having led them them astray? How many were scarred by the hatred of others?
How many listened to violent music and how many listened to Beethoven? How many went to violent movies, and how many stayed home and watched Andy Griffith?
How many were raised on love? How many were raised on religion? And, the ones who were raised on religion, why did they go astray?
Yes, the secrets of society lay within the walls of a prison. Do your study, and you will learn how to empty it. Well, some.
We Will Never Know What a Jury Would have Ruled
Bernardo Palacios should not have been killed by police. Yes, he had been involved in an armed hold-up. Yes, he had a gun.
Watch the videos. Do you ever see him threaten the officers with his gun? I watch them time-and-time again. I don't see it. I listen as the district attorney, Sim Gill, explains that the officers pointed the gun at officers. No, I don't see that.
The killing of Bernardo Palacios remains unjustified, from all that I see.
But, here is what is also wrong: The trial has already taken place, and Bernardo had no representation -- no one to speak for his side of the case. The DA listened to the officers who did the shooting. They were, in essence, called to the witness stand. They presented their case to the DA. The case against the officers? Who was there to present it? Bernardo? He was killed before he could reach the witness stand. Was the Palacios family lawyer brought in to argue? No, he wasn't.
The DA acted as the judge. He took the evidence, and he ruled on the case. The videos presented strong evidence against the officers. But, rather than passing that evidence along to the courts and letting them make the decision, Sim Gill cut short the process and made a ruling, himself. The Sixth Amendment calls for American trials to be tried by jury, not by DAs, and it calls for those such as Bernardo to be represented by their attorneys. Bernardo's case deserved as much.
Yes, to uphold our Constitution, we should have had a real trial. Justice was cut short and we will never know what a jury would have ruled.
Watch the videos. Do you ever see him threaten the officers with his gun? I watch them time-and-time again. I don't see it. I listen as the district attorney, Sim Gill, explains that the officers pointed the gun at officers. No, I don't see that.
The killing of Bernardo Palacios remains unjustified, from all that I see.
But, here is what is also wrong: The trial has already taken place, and Bernardo had no representation -- no one to speak for his side of the case. The DA listened to the officers who did the shooting. They were, in essence, called to the witness stand. They presented their case to the DA. The case against the officers? Who was there to present it? Bernardo? He was killed before he could reach the witness stand. Was the Palacios family lawyer brought in to argue? No, he wasn't.
The DA acted as the judge. He took the evidence, and he ruled on the case. The videos presented strong evidence against the officers. But, rather than passing that evidence along to the courts and letting them make the decision, Sim Gill cut short the process and made a ruling, himself. The Sixth Amendment calls for American trials to be tried by jury, not by DAs, and it calls for those such as Bernardo to be represented by their attorneys. Bernardo's case deserved as much.
Yes, to uphold our Constitution, we should have had a real trial. Justice was cut short and we will never know what a jury would have ruled.
Wednesday, July 8, 2020
Bounce the Name 'Redskins' if Found Offensive, and 'Rebels' Definitely
The Rebels, Redskins, Braves, and Seminoles, what should we do with these names?
It would seem to me, teams do not take on a name unless the name they are taking is one they feel they can be proud of. "Redskins"? They take it as a badge of honor. Do mascots imitate sacred dances? That is wrong, but I wonder that they need to be offended at the use of the name, "Redskin."
Just the same, if it does offend them, change it. Honor them in their desire. Changing it is not that big of a deal.
"Rebels"? If that name was taken from the Civil War, yes, it is offensive. You are honoring those who fought to keep slavery in effect.
It would seem to me, teams do not take on a name unless the name they are taking is one they feel they can be proud of. "Redskins"? They take it as a badge of honor. Do mascots imitate sacred dances? That is wrong, but I wonder that they need to be offended at the use of the name, "Redskin."
Just the same, if it does offend them, change it. Honor them in their desire. Changing it is not that big of a deal.
"Rebels"? If that name was taken from the Civil War, yes, it is offensive. You are honoring those who fought to keep slavery in effect.
Place a Cop on Every Corner and Stop the Killings in Chicago
While the nation revolts in anger against the violence being perpetrated on Blacks, one city not getting the attention it should is Chicago. Eighty people shot, 14 killed on the July 4th weekend? How does that not get our attention?
I followed the on-going deaths closely a year or so ago. Many of those murders were of Blacks. Few of them were solved. Chicago had more unsolved murders than most anyplace in the country. (Perhaps official counts have come down under new Mayor Lori Lightfoot, but I read a story of how the figures are being manipulated.)
Name their names? List the names of the 14 killed next time you go protesting, if you will. Those who killed George Floyd are at least brought to justice. Those being killed in Chicago are not being prosecuted because they are not being caught. Some suggest it is because not enough manpower is being assigned to those parts of the town, because they are just poor Black communities. If it were happening in the richer parts of town, justice would come down. Defund our police? Chicago seems to need more, not fewer police.
"The Windy City is becoming the Bloody City," said the Rev. Michael Pleger, noting Chicago is the experiencing its worst violence it has had in his 45 years there.
If we are going to curb the killings in Chicago, we need to start catching and prosecuting the killers. The killing won't stop if they know they can get away with it.
What can be done? Place a cop -- literally -- on every corner. If something goes down, they are right there to catch it. I read how there are 12,000 cops in Chicago. If that is not enough, hire more.
I followed the on-going deaths closely a year or so ago. Many of those murders were of Blacks. Few of them were solved. Chicago had more unsolved murders than most anyplace in the country. (Perhaps official counts have come down under new Mayor Lori Lightfoot, but I read a story of how the figures are being manipulated.)
Name their names? List the names of the 14 killed next time you go protesting, if you will. Those who killed George Floyd are at least brought to justice. Those being killed in Chicago are not being prosecuted because they are not being caught. Some suggest it is because not enough manpower is being assigned to those parts of the town, because they are just poor Black communities. If it were happening in the richer parts of town, justice would come down. Defund our police? Chicago seems to need more, not fewer police.
"The Windy City is becoming the Bloody City," said the Rev. Michael Pleger, noting Chicago is the experiencing its worst violence it has had in his 45 years there.
If we are going to curb the killings in Chicago, we need to start catching and prosecuting the killers. The killing won't stop if they know they can get away with it.
What can be done? Place a cop -- literally -- on every corner. If something goes down, they are right there to catch it. I read how there are 12,000 cops in Chicago. If that is not enough, hire more.
Tuesday, July 7, 2020
How Should I Respond to Those Who Do Not Approve of My Protesting?
How should I respond to those who do not approve of my being part of the protesting? I pause and consider. Perhaps one thing might be to look my friends in the eye, and tell them I love these people, the African Americans. I should tell my friends I am concerned for the Black people, and that I can tell they are being harmed because of their race. I should tell them that as a Christian, I simply think it right to help them.
I could then conclude by saying, Let it not be judged an evil thing that we should help each other.
I could then conclude by saying, Let it not be judged an evil thing that we should help each other.
Court's Decision Makes it Official: Electoral College is Meaningless
The Constitution lost yesterday, and the Electoral College was taken yet further away from the way it was set up by the founding fathers.
The Supreme Court ruled against "faithless electors," not allowing members of the Electoral College to vote for whomever they choose. You will argue that the electors should be obligated to vote for whom the voters tell them to. But, there are two things wrong with that thought: First, that isn't in the way it was set up by the Constitution. And, second, if electors are forced to vote for the state's popular-vote winner, that cancels out their ability -- should they ever decide to do it -- to translate the votes of the people for the second-leading candidate into a vote in the Electoral College. Grant it, the faithless Electors traditionally vote for whomever they will, not for the second-leading candidate. But, the Supreme Court ruling does, the same, prevent them from ever carrying the vote of the minority into the Electoral College if they were to decide to do that.
So, what does the Constitution say? While Justice Elena Kagan, writing the court's opinion, says the Constitution grants "the electors themselves no rights," it does. It speaks of them casting their ballots and of them voting. That is enough. How is that not giving them the right to do just what it says, to vote? Yes, giving someone a "vote," is giving them the right to vote. The Constitution gave the electors the right to vote, and now the Supreme Court is taking that right away from them.
"Each state shall appoint, in such a Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors," says the Constitution. It does not then go on to say the electors, once appointed, can be required by law to vote for any particular candidate. It does not bind their vote in any way. It does not even suggest, insinuate, or indicate their votes shall not be their own.
That concept, that you can vote, but you cannot just vote for anyone you want, is at odds with the very meaning of the word "vote." It may have been a practice of the old Soviet Union, but it doesn't work that way here in America.
No, just to read it, you'd think the founding fathers actually intended for the electors to vote for whomever they wanted to, whomever they might choose. It's almost as if they wanted the Electoral College to mean something.
Fancy that.
Actually, if you think about it, why even have an Electoral College if you aren't going to let it do anything? Why take up all that space in the Constitution explaining how you want the Electoral College to function if you don't really mean for it to be a real thing, anyway? I mean, do we really suppose the Electoral College was suppose to actually do something?
The Supreme Court doesn't seem to think so. They've stripped it of its powers. Though, in practice, the Electoral College went the way of the tide long ago, the Supreme Court's decision seals it, makes it law as opposed to just practice.
The founders went at length to describe how the Electoral College was to go about electing a president. No governing process is described in such detail as the process for using what we now call the Electoral College to elect a president. The Constitution takes the time to spell out how the members were to be picked, when they would be gathered to vote, how their votes would be transmitted to Congress, and when those votes would be counted. If the process meant so much to the fathers, how come we have come along to render it all a farce? It wasn't long before we came along and put aside all their great effort. About the last vestige from the way it was suppose to function has been that occasionally "rogue" electors would rise up and vote for whomever they wanted to, regardless the instructions they were given on who to vote for. The "rogue electors," the "faithless electors," were the last vestige of the Electoral College operating the way it was set up. They were the last vestige of the Electoral College having any meaning.
Well, now, even that last vestige is gone. We've taken a final step against the Electoral College. And, we've sealed everything over with our High Court, in effect, saying, Abandoning the way the Constitution set it up, and doing it this way, instead, is a wonderful idea. So, let's just keep on keeping on, and be happy we don't have to do it the way the Constitution wanted us to. We hereby declare it the official law of the land. officially setting aside whatever small words the Constitution might have had on the matter. What, you would expect us to rule differently? Everyone in the country thinks the popular vote should be for the presidential candidates, themselves, as opposed to electing a group to make that decision for us.
Alas, that is in effect what they are saying. And, alas, they are accurate on that last point. But, I will remain one who would like us to do the election the way the founding fathers intended it done. I just keep thinking, If this document truly was inspired, then let's do it the way the founders told us to do it.
The Supreme Court ruled against "faithless electors," not allowing members of the Electoral College to vote for whomever they choose. You will argue that the electors should be obligated to vote for whom the voters tell them to. But, there are two things wrong with that thought: First, that isn't in the way it was set up by the Constitution. And, second, if electors are forced to vote for the state's popular-vote winner, that cancels out their ability -- should they ever decide to do it -- to translate the votes of the people for the second-leading candidate into a vote in the Electoral College. Grant it, the faithless Electors traditionally vote for whomever they will, not for the second-leading candidate. But, the Supreme Court ruling does, the same, prevent them from ever carrying the vote of the minority into the Electoral College if they were to decide to do that.
So, what does the Constitution say? While Justice Elena Kagan, writing the court's opinion, says the Constitution grants "the electors themselves no rights," it does. It speaks of them casting their ballots and of them voting. That is enough. How is that not giving them the right to do just what it says, to vote? Yes, giving someone a "vote," is giving them the right to vote. The Constitution gave the electors the right to vote, and now the Supreme Court is taking that right away from them.
"Each state shall appoint, in such a Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors," says the Constitution. It does not then go on to say the electors, once appointed, can be required by law to vote for any particular candidate. It does not bind their vote in any way. It does not even suggest, insinuate, or indicate their votes shall not be their own.
That concept, that you can vote, but you cannot just vote for anyone you want, is at odds with the very meaning of the word "vote." It may have been a practice of the old Soviet Union, but it doesn't work that way here in America.
No, just to read it, you'd think the founding fathers actually intended for the electors to vote for whomever they wanted to, whomever they might choose. It's almost as if they wanted the Electoral College to mean something.
Fancy that.
Actually, if you think about it, why even have an Electoral College if you aren't going to let it do anything? Why take up all that space in the Constitution explaining how you want the Electoral College to function if you don't really mean for it to be a real thing, anyway? I mean, do we really suppose the Electoral College was suppose to actually do something?
The Supreme Court doesn't seem to think so. They've stripped it of its powers. Though, in practice, the Electoral College went the way of the tide long ago, the Supreme Court's decision seals it, makes it law as opposed to just practice.
The founders went at length to describe how the Electoral College was to go about electing a president. No governing process is described in such detail as the process for using what we now call the Electoral College to elect a president. The Constitution takes the time to spell out how the members were to be picked, when they would be gathered to vote, how their votes would be transmitted to Congress, and when those votes would be counted. If the process meant so much to the fathers, how come we have come along to render it all a farce? It wasn't long before we came along and put aside all their great effort. About the last vestige from the way it was suppose to function has been that occasionally "rogue" electors would rise up and vote for whomever they wanted to, regardless the instructions they were given on who to vote for. The "rogue electors," the "faithless electors," were the last vestige of the Electoral College operating the way it was set up. They were the last vestige of the Electoral College having any meaning.
Well, now, even that last vestige is gone. We've taken a final step against the Electoral College. And, we've sealed everything over with our High Court, in effect, saying, Abandoning the way the Constitution set it up, and doing it this way, instead, is a wonderful idea. So, let's just keep on keeping on, and be happy we don't have to do it the way the Constitution wanted us to. We hereby declare it the official law of the land. officially setting aside whatever small words the Constitution might have had on the matter. What, you would expect us to rule differently? Everyone in the country thinks the popular vote should be for the presidential candidates, themselves, as opposed to electing a group to make that decision for us.
Alas, that is in effect what they are saying. And, alas, they are accurate on that last point. But, I will remain one who would like us to do the election the way the founding fathers intended it done. I just keep thinking, If this document truly was inspired, then let's do it the way the founders told us to do it.
Sunday, July 5, 2020
Little Winds -- Even Those Caused by Walking -- Can Disrupt the Virus
Rock your body back and forth really quickly, your head swinging right along with your torso. Feel a bit of a wind? It is so when you walk. A small current of air is created.
In this is a huge secret to fighting COVID-19.
From the small wind created by walking, small virus particles are swept around and away from your face. That little of a wind carries them away because they are so light. They don't quite get close enough to enter your body because the wind current sweeps them around you. I would suspect this is why we are more likely to contact the virus if just standing in one place with others for a substantial amount of time. Standing still enables the virus, as the air is stagnant and the particles float into contact with your face. Walking disrupts it, as a small wind is created to carry the particles around and away from your face.
So, what of the notion that wearing a mask only protects you from giving the virus away, not from getting it? I would say that it is wrong. When someone coughs or sneezes, they hurdle large projectiles into the air. You put on a mask, and those are caught before they hit you in the face.
But, more than keeping away the large projectiles, it is important to keep away the small particles that float in the air -- the small airborne particles emitted from just talking and breathing. They are the greater fear. The virus is spreading more from this fashion. Most of the transmissions are not from the projectiles, but from these small airborne particles that waft out of the mouth and nose when just breathing. They don't fall quickly and within six feet like the projectiles do. No, they hang in the air and float.
The small wind of a walk will help carry much of the virus away, but wearing a mask helps. Without the mask, the wind touches your face. So, even though many of the particles are being swept around and away from your face, some of that wind and thus some of the virus is touching your face. Put on your mask, and the covered part of the face will not fell any of that wind. If this wind cannot reach you, neither can the virus it carries.
In this is a huge secret to fighting COVID-19.
From the small wind created by walking, small virus particles are swept around and away from your face. That little of a wind carries them away because they are so light. They don't quite get close enough to enter your body because the wind current sweeps them around you. I would suspect this is why we are more likely to contact the virus if just standing in one place with others for a substantial amount of time. Standing still enables the virus, as the air is stagnant and the particles float into contact with your face. Walking disrupts it, as a small wind is created to carry the particles around and away from your face.
So, what of the notion that wearing a mask only protects you from giving the virus away, not from getting it? I would say that it is wrong. When someone coughs or sneezes, they hurdle large projectiles into the air. You put on a mask, and those are caught before they hit you in the face.
But, more than keeping away the large projectiles, it is important to keep away the small particles that float in the air -- the small airborne particles emitted from just talking and breathing. They are the greater fear. The virus is spreading more from this fashion. Most of the transmissions are not from the projectiles, but from these small airborne particles that waft out of the mouth and nose when just breathing. They don't fall quickly and within six feet like the projectiles do. No, they hang in the air and float.
The small wind of a walk will help carry much of the virus away, but wearing a mask helps. Without the mask, the wind touches your face. So, even though many of the particles are being swept around and away from your face, some of that wind and thus some of the virus is touching your face. Put on your mask, and the covered part of the face will not fell any of that wind. If this wind cannot reach you, neither can the virus it carries.
Saturday, July 4, 2020
Words to a song I wrote:
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
I'm black spent,
I'm not bent
I'm invested in their cause, I am
Like a bridge and a twirl,
Over a lake . . . with waters a-swirl
And, then I'm on the other side, I am
Safe and dry
Though I learned to cry
And my tears filled the river just crossed
No more: White-bossed
No more: Torn n' tossed
No more: Cause that's lost
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
They hit the bridge
They march across
And they land . . . at last on the other side
In a land of justice
They had no justice
Until the feet on the bridge turned the tide
Beneath our feet is a river
And the tide can turn
If our feet pound a beat
And it sounds so neat
And . . . black justice the nation will learn
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
No more: White-bossed
No more: Torn n' tossed
No more: Cause that's lost
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
In a land of justice
They had no justice
Until the feet on the bridge turned the tide
Nothin' but the sound of feet hitting the ground
In a cause . . . that would not be denied
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
I'm black spent,
I'm not bent
I'm invested in their cause, I am
Like a bridge and a twirl,
Over a lake . . . with waters a-swirl
And, then I'm on the other side, I am
Safe and dry
Though I learned to cry
And my tears filled the river just crossed
No more: White-bossed
No more: Torn n' tossed
No more: Cause that's lost
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
They hit the bridge
They march across
And they land . . . at last on the other side
In a land of justice
They had no justice
Until the feet on the bridge turned the tide
Beneath our feet is a river
And the tide can turn
If our feet pound a beat
And it sounds so neat
And . . . black justice the nation will learn
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
No more: White-bossed
No more: Torn n' tossed
No more: Cause that's lost
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
In a land of justice
They had no justice
Until the feet on the bridge turned the tide
Nothin' but the sound of feet hitting the ground
In a cause . . . that would not be denied
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
Nothin' but the sound of feet hittin' the ground
In a march for the freedom of the town
Friday, July 3, 2020
Is Lee's Resolution Dismissive of the Protesters' Grievances?
Our senator from Utah proposed a resolution against violence a couple days ago. "Before we break for the Fourth of July recess, I thought it would be important to get the Senate on record condemning the rising tide of mob violence we see across the country, and the increasingly prevalent mob-mentality that is fueling it," Sen. Mike Lee said.
Certainly, turning people from violence is a good thing. If Lee's resolution could do that, it would be good. But, consider this: If the resolution marginalizes those things the protesters are asking for, and if it only increases the divide between the two sides, and stirs up division against them, it is not so good.
Blessed are the peacemakers. Would Lee's resolution help bridge the divide? Is it an act of peacemaking? Let us read from the resolution and wonder.
"Whereas the United States of America was founded in 1776 on universal principles of freedom, justice, and human equality; Whereas throughout our nation’s history, Americans have struggled to realize those ideals, falling short, as imperfect human beings always do, but nonetheless making greater progress toward them than any nation on earth; Whereas the United States is today, as ever, an ethnically, racially, religiously, and culturally diverse nation, morally committed to cultivating respect, friendship, and justice across all such differences, and protecting the God-given equal rights of all Americans under the law . . ."
Sounds noble. High-minded words, all. Consider, though, that the protesters are saying they don't have justice, don't have equity, and don't believe we are making greater progress than any nation on earth in attaining them. That is their point: that the protesting of the '60s didn't bring to an end the injustices. The resolution is a slap in the face, from that standpoint, as it basically says, No, you are wrong, we are a nation of justice and equity. They are saying, No, that's the problem, it's not a nation of justice and equity.
Instead of being just a call to end violence, the resolution is already becoming a denial of what the protesters are saying. "The United States is today, as ever . . . morally committed to cultivating respect, friendship, and justice across all such differences, and protecting the God-given equal rights of all Americans under the law." The protesters are saying, No, you are not committed to protecting God-given equal rights. Why do you think we are protesting?
"Whereas America’s law enforcement officers do an extremely difficult job extremely well, and despite the inexcusable misconduct of some, the overwhelming majority of such officers are honest, courageous, patriotic, and rightfully honored public servants . . ."
No doubt, the officers are generally honest and good public servants. Yes, the resolution does acknowledge there are a few bad actors, but it doesn't acknowledge that those bad actors need removed from their positions. It is more or less suggesting that since the overwhelming majority of officers are good, can we just move on? And, is it true that an overwhelming majority are good? Perhaps, but until we do an audit of those officers, and search out and see how many are not, we don't know for sure how many are not. The resolution thus marginalizes the amount of police violence the protesters believe exists.
No, vandalism and tearing things down are not good. Calling for all protesters to be as peaceful as the peaceful ones is good. But, when the resolution in an off-hand way also dismisses and marginalizes the grievances of all the protesters, it only serves to inflame them. They might well reply, You don't believe we have just grievances, do you? And, in their anger, how might they respond?
Certainly, turning people from violence is a good thing. If Lee's resolution could do that, it would be good. But, consider this: If the resolution marginalizes those things the protesters are asking for, and if it only increases the divide between the two sides, and stirs up division against them, it is not so good.
Blessed are the peacemakers. Would Lee's resolution help bridge the divide? Is it an act of peacemaking? Let us read from the resolution and wonder.
"Whereas the United States of America was founded in 1776 on universal principles of freedom, justice, and human equality; Whereas throughout our nation’s history, Americans have struggled to realize those ideals, falling short, as imperfect human beings always do, but nonetheless making greater progress toward them than any nation on earth; Whereas the United States is today, as ever, an ethnically, racially, religiously, and culturally diverse nation, morally committed to cultivating respect, friendship, and justice across all such differences, and protecting the God-given equal rights of all Americans under the law . . ."
Sounds noble. High-minded words, all. Consider, though, that the protesters are saying they don't have justice, don't have equity, and don't believe we are making greater progress than any nation on earth in attaining them. That is their point: that the protesting of the '60s didn't bring to an end the injustices. The resolution is a slap in the face, from that standpoint, as it basically says, No, you are wrong, we are a nation of justice and equity. They are saying, No, that's the problem, it's not a nation of justice and equity.
Instead of being just a call to end violence, the resolution is already becoming a denial of what the protesters are saying. "The United States is today, as ever . . . morally committed to cultivating respect, friendship, and justice across all such differences, and protecting the God-given equal rights of all Americans under the law." The protesters are saying, No, you are not committed to protecting God-given equal rights. Why do you think we are protesting?
"Whereas America’s law enforcement officers do an extremely difficult job extremely well, and despite the inexcusable misconduct of some, the overwhelming majority of such officers are honest, courageous, patriotic, and rightfully honored public servants . . ."
No doubt, the officers are generally honest and good public servants. Yes, the resolution does acknowledge there are a few bad actors, but it doesn't acknowledge that those bad actors need removed from their positions. It is more or less suggesting that since the overwhelming majority of officers are good, can we just move on? And, is it true that an overwhelming majority are good? Perhaps, but until we do an audit of those officers, and search out and see how many are not, we don't know for sure how many are not. The resolution thus marginalizes the amount of police violence the protesters believe exists.
No, vandalism and tearing things down are not good. Calling for all protesters to be as peaceful as the peaceful ones is good. But, when the resolution in an off-hand way also dismisses and marginalizes the grievances of all the protesters, it only serves to inflame them. They might well reply, You don't believe we have just grievances, do you? And, in their anger, how might they respond?
Thursday, July 2, 2020
Poll Your Fans to See if They Will Accept Kap
Colin Kaepernick. Still not with a team. No offer. No workout. No signing.
Something is wrong.
Here's a guy who was a Super Bowl quarterback. Here's a guy who is one of the top 24 in NFL history when measured by their passer ratings. Here's a guy who something called Pro Football Focus has rated as the most valuable player to have played for the 49ers in the past decade. (No, that isn't an old article; It came out June 7 of this year.) On talent and proven record alone, he would have been the No. 1 pick if placed in the past year's draft.
Teams should be in a mad rush to beat each other to this guy.
Still not offered a contract? What's going on? Something's amiss.
Confessedly, it might be fear of backlash from the fans; They might boycott the team's games if Kap comes aboard. Or, is there truly collusion on part of the NFL, to keep him out?
It's one of the two. It isn't that he lacks the talent. He's been out for a few years, so you don't know if he can still perform. But, his resume clearly suggests he belongs on a roster.
If you're managing a team, poll the fans. Run a survey. And, if it comes back that they will accept him, sign him. If they won't, it's their loss. This guy can play.
Something is wrong.
Here's a guy who was a Super Bowl quarterback. Here's a guy who is one of the top 24 in NFL history when measured by their passer ratings. Here's a guy who something called Pro Football Focus has rated as the most valuable player to have played for the 49ers in the past decade. (No, that isn't an old article; It came out June 7 of this year.) On talent and proven record alone, he would have been the No. 1 pick if placed in the past year's draft.
Teams should be in a mad rush to beat each other to this guy.
Still not offered a contract? What's going on? Something's amiss.
Confessedly, it might be fear of backlash from the fans; They might boycott the team's games if Kap comes aboard. Or, is there truly collusion on part of the NFL, to keep him out?
It's one of the two. It isn't that he lacks the talent. He's been out for a few years, so you don't know if he can still perform. But, his resume clearly suggests he belongs on a roster.
If you're managing a team, poll the fans. Run a survey. And, if it comes back that they will accept him, sign him. If they won't, it's their loss. This guy can play.
Wednesday, July 1, 2020
Tuesday, We Sentenced Jeffrey Don Black for Something He Didn't do
Do we say that if you were in the commission of a crime, and you didn't kill someone but your buddy did, then you are guilty of that murder right along with him?
Do we say that if you were the passenger in the car, and the driver drove over someone, then that is not only murder by him, but by you, as well?
Well, we just did. We -- ah, Utah, no less -- sentenced a man who was but a passenger in the car when his buddy slammed into a police officer and killed him. The buddy was shot by police, and ended up dying, along with the officer.
Oh, don't worry. It's okay. Somewhere in this big book of laws, we're going to find a law that makes it legal.
"If the actor is engaged in the commission, attempted commission, or immediate flight from the commission or attempted commission" of a crime, and someone gets killed, it doesn't matter if that actor was the person who did the killing, according to Utah Code 76-5-203. Thus, the law says he is guilty of the killing, all the the same.
It's all legal, what we are doing, all legal.
Justice in America once meant just what the word suggests: Justice. But, these days, we've got some pretty messed up laws. And, we enforce them. And, we hold our heads up high and say he had it coming. We back these laws, and call them justice. After all, he was just a criminal.
No protesting in the streets for Jeffrey Don Black. Nobody yelling, "Justice for Jeff." But there ought to be. Tuesday, we sentenced this Murray man to up to 30 years in prison for crimes involved with the death of the police officer, David Romrell -- and Black didn't even kill him, didn't want him to die, and had no opportunity to stop the car's driver, Anthony Calata, from killing him. He's sorry to tears that it happened.
You weren't the guy that did it? Doesn't matter: guilty. This is America -- not the old America, but the new America -- and we've got a strange sense of justice.
Oh, and if you think 30 years in prison a dandy amount of time, consider that we let him off easy. Plea bargaining, you know. We told him, If you will just agree to plea guilty to a reduced charge of manslaughter, not only will we let you off for murder, but we will drop all these lesser charges -- obstructing justice, burglary and failing to stop for police. Yes, yes, yes, we've got all kinds of little trinkets here for you.
Can't beat this, can you? We're letting you off easy peasy.
So, we talked him into pleading guilty to a crime he never committed. We sentenced him to hard jail time for something he didn't even do. It's fair and all, I suppose, because he was a criminal. If anyone tries to stand up for him, they'll be lashed at for standing up for criminals.
Plea bargaining in America has wrought us this. We were once a much fairer nation. You had to be convicted of a crime before they sent you off to jail. You had to be tried before a jury of your peers before anyone could toss you in the can. Constitution set things up that way. In modern America, though, you can be convicted without a trial. Just plead guilty, and we'll take care of you. We'll make sure you get off easy.
Gotta plead guilty, though. Gotta plead guilty. I know you say you didn't do it. But, if you'll just say, Oh, now I remember, and I guess I was kinda guilty of manslaughter, then we'll make all the real bad stuff go away. Come on, it's for your own good. Just sign on the dotted line. There you go. There, that's it. Now, have a good time in the slammer.
Do we say that if you were the passenger in the car, and the driver drove over someone, then that is not only murder by him, but by you, as well?
Well, we just did. We -- ah, Utah, no less -- sentenced a man who was but a passenger in the car when his buddy slammed into a police officer and killed him. The buddy was shot by police, and ended up dying, along with the officer.
Oh, don't worry. It's okay. Somewhere in this big book of laws, we're going to find a law that makes it legal.
"If the actor is engaged in the commission, attempted commission, or immediate flight from the commission or attempted commission" of a crime, and someone gets killed, it doesn't matter if that actor was the person who did the killing, according to Utah Code 76-5-203. Thus, the law says he is guilty of the killing, all the the same.
It's all legal, what we are doing, all legal.
Justice in America once meant just what the word suggests: Justice. But, these days, we've got some pretty messed up laws. And, we enforce them. And, we hold our heads up high and say he had it coming. We back these laws, and call them justice. After all, he was just a criminal.
No protesting in the streets for Jeffrey Don Black. Nobody yelling, "Justice for Jeff." But there ought to be. Tuesday, we sentenced this Murray man to up to 30 years in prison for crimes involved with the death of the police officer, David Romrell -- and Black didn't even kill him, didn't want him to die, and had no opportunity to stop the car's driver, Anthony Calata, from killing him. He's sorry to tears that it happened.
You weren't the guy that did it? Doesn't matter: guilty. This is America -- not the old America, but the new America -- and we've got a strange sense of justice.
Oh, and if you think 30 years in prison a dandy amount of time, consider that we let him off easy. Plea bargaining, you know. We told him, If you will just agree to plea guilty to a reduced charge of manslaughter, not only will we let you off for murder, but we will drop all these lesser charges -- obstructing justice, burglary and failing to stop for police. Yes, yes, yes, we've got all kinds of little trinkets here for you.
Can't beat this, can you? We're letting you off easy peasy.
So, we talked him into pleading guilty to a crime he never committed. We sentenced him to hard jail time for something he didn't even do. It's fair and all, I suppose, because he was a criminal. If anyone tries to stand up for him, they'll be lashed at for standing up for criminals.
Plea bargaining in America has wrought us this. We were once a much fairer nation. You had to be convicted of a crime before they sent you off to jail. You had to be tried before a jury of your peers before anyone could toss you in the can. Constitution set things up that way. In modern America, though, you can be convicted without a trial. Just plead guilty, and we'll take care of you. We'll make sure you get off easy.
Gotta plead guilty, though. Gotta plead guilty. I know you say you didn't do it. But, if you'll just say, Oh, now I remember, and I guess I was kinda guilty of manslaughter, then we'll make all the real bad stuff go away. Come on, it's for your own good. Just sign on the dotted line. There you go. There, that's it. Now, have a good time in the slammer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)