The Day the Dackerville Press became the Dackerville Media

    "Do you promise to find the truth, the whole truth, as well as everything that isn't the truth?" the editor asked his just-being-sworn-in reporter, whose one hand rested on the Bible, with the other raised to the square.

    "So help me God," the reporter replied, solemnly.

    The Dackerville Press had been around for 103 years, having celebrated its 100th anniversary the year President Trump came to office. Now, it was being reorganized. Now it was being rededicated. 

   To truth. This was a day when the nation's president told people the press could not be trusted. And so, some readers of the Press had chided it for being too liberal, for not being fair towards Trump.

   Max Stevens, the editor, hadn't liked those accusations. They set a burr underneath him. To him, the press was to be as impartial as a judge and jury. That people didn't see his paper as being that way rubbed him wrong. Not that he felt his paper impartial, but he seethed and determined to take steps so no one should question the impartiality.

   Nor, its tenacity for going after the truth, begone that this might only give them yet more inclination to assail the paper for being partial. 

   The next reporter came up. "Do you promise to find the truth, the whole truth, as well as everything that isn't the truth. And, to report the full of what you find, and to expose all falsehoods?" he asked the reporter. Candace Jones, the reporter, promised to do so, and the next reporter stepped up.

   "Do you swear to be honest, do you swear to be fair, do you swear be unbiased, do you swear not to yield to those who accuse you of being biased, as they try to intimidate you and shame you into favoring them?"

   "Max, you know I am going to do everything I can. Yes, I so swear."

    Stevens was entertaining a dangerous future for the paper. In a day when newspapers were folding, he was doubling the number of reporters. They would work in teams of two, each being charged with questioning what the other might find, double-checking it. Though both were charged with looking at both sides of the issue, one was to be particularly charged with finding and not missing things on one side of the issue, and the other with especially looking out for the other side of the matter. Co-bylines. When it came time to write, they were to be unified. 

   With all the charges that the president was not being treated fairly, the Dackerville Press was not going to leave those stories to the national press. If the national press was seen as biased, Stevens wanted his reporters to take the wire reports and combine them, double-checking their facts, and going beyond what the national media were saying. "Fox News is reporting this. CNN is reporting this. We ventured a call to the White House and finally got through to a spokesperson, and this is what they said. We then got through to Nancy Pelosi's office and this is what she said."

   The Dackerville Press -- one hundred and three years it had been around. Today, though, it was taking on a new name. Max hadn't told his reporters yet. He let them start to walk away, they thinking the meeting was over, before he stopped them in their tracks. "Hey, hey, wait. Come back. I did fail to tell you one thing. We're going to rename the paper. It just seems we should mark our changes with a new name. When tomorrow's paper rolls off the press, it will be the Dackersville Media. That's a reflection of our times. People refer to us as the media  as the media these days, so that's what we'll call it. Back in the day, they called everything "the press." But these days, "media" is more common. 

   And, so was reborn the Dackerville Press, and so was born the Dackerville Media.

(Index -- Stories, My stories)

Are We Really Safe from Ballot Box Fraud this Election?

    I hear no fear that the Russians will reach into our ballot boxes and pull out a rabbit. I hear no worry that they will alter the ballots. 

   But, yet I fear.

   I think of J. Alex Halderman, as expert as there is on the topic, and of how he called for recounts in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan in 2016. I think of how he has shown how electronic vote counts can be altered. I think of how we know Russia has infiltrated our voting records. I think of how it is said it can all be done without leaving a trace. 

   If mail-in votes are entered in the computers -- and obviously they are -- they can be altered as easily as votes done right on the machines. That's my understanding. 

  

Never has a Free Press been of More Need than it is Right Now

    Start underscoring those quotes on the importance of a free press.

   "Our liberty depends on freedom of the press. and that cannot be limited without being lost." -- Thomas Jefferson

   Our nation never has been so in need of the press as it is now. Truth has never been so assailed. In the very day when newspapers are folding, the need for them cries the loudest.

   We live in a day of the campaign flyer. Politicians pay thousands to tell their lies. A hit piece arrives in the mail, and nothing stands to defend against it. We need the newspaper.

   The newspaper -- if it were operating as it needs to -- would step in and scream the truth. No story would be more important than the one debunking the lies of campaign hit piece. But, it is not so these days. The press has so many other things to write about.

   I think of the Ben McAdams/Burgess Owens race for Congress, the millions of dollars being tossed by each side, the false accusations, the misleading statements. Where the press? So much we need the press to be stepping in each day, front page and center, reporting what the mailers from the current day said -- and telling why they are out-of-line, irresponsible, false or misleading.

   Pepper the news articles with quotes decrying the dishonesty of the mailers, quotes demanding that we do better than this. 

   These news articles are essential. Truth will not be told without them. Leave it to the mailers to fight it out, and one untruth will only be met with another. One upmanship. An arms war. The escalation of hatred and deceit. 

   Deceit is on fertile ground when that ground is strewn with money. Just like horse manure makes good fertilizer, so does money. Lies grow where money feeds them. If the truth is to be told, then, it must rely on a source that doesn't yield to money, that refuses to be dictated to by riches.

   That would be the press, the free press. We need it now more than ever. 

   

Nope, Let's not Legalize Raw Milk

  Forget about marijuana, I just want to know if we should legalize milk (raw milk, that is). What is this, anyway, that stores are not allowed to sell raw milk. Where does that come from? Why such a law?

  Off top, it seems the silliest of little laws. I grew up on a farm. We would go to a neighboring farm where raw milk was raised, and buy the milk. Never did us any harm. Not that I know of.

  So, as I sat down tonight, having determined I would write about raw milk, I, off course, decided I better study first. And, a little study has flipped my opinion almost completely on end. Raw milk contains pathogens -- dangerous microorganisms that bring serious health risks.

   Salmonella, E. coli, etc. -- you want them? Tuberculosis? Yes, raw milk can cause that. I reflect on how there was a day when there were so many diseases. Am I conjecturing too much, to wonder if in that day and age, with everyone drinking raw milk, the raw milk was a cause that brought much of the disease?

   Then, along comes Louis Pasteur, and we start heating the milk for a brief moment, killing all the germs, and the world has been a healthier place ever since. Of course, we should do this. Of course, raw milk should be outlawed.

   I do have some reservations. I read of an Idaho dairyman, who fed one set of calves pasteurized milk, and the other raw milk. After a week, he said, those on raw milk just looked better, healthier hair texture and all. 

   Two things I learned are myths: One, pasteurization kills the nutrients. It doesn't. Two, raw milk does not have bacteria that benefit gastrointestinal health. So, no, raw milk is not a probiotic.  

Reorganizing Our Committee Work on Capitol Hill

   Brainstorming, in a way -- what to do with committees on Capitol Hill.

   Keep them, have them . . . but, reduce the in-meeting participation of each such committee to three. One of the three is charged with finding everything that speaks in favor of a bill, another with finding everything that speaks against a bill, and the third member charged with talking both sides and boiling them down with conciseness to give to the whole of the legislative body.

  In the committee meeting, the two on each side of the question would speak. Then, the public would be invited to comment. 

   The committee member charged with combining the information would then take it and present it to the full body of legislators. Should a member of the public feel something was overlooked, or not be receiving adequate play, he or she could then appeal to the speaker of the house or the senate president. And, should the leader of that house agree, then he or she could either address the full body him or herself with the information, or give the floor to the public member to address the issue him or herself. 

   Such an organization of the committee work would help ensure that both sides of the issue receive attention. As is, if no one shows to speak to one side, that side of the question might not even be considered. 

Our Responsibility is to not Let Guns Fall into Their Hands

   Police shot and injured an 18-year old mentally ill man in Ogden Tuesday. The man was said to have been charging toward an officer with a knife.

   We, as society, should do better in keeping weapons out of reach of the mentally ill. It might be hard to keep a butcher knife from him, but a gun should not be anywhere he could get it.  Family members, friends and others have responsibility to keep their weapons out of the reach of their mentally ill associates.

  Of course, it might be that the 18-year-old bought the gun on his own, that it was his. That is a little harder to control. Still, the message remains: If someone you know is mentally ill, you have an obligation to society to keep your gun from falling into his or her hands. 

 

Are Committees Worthy to have up at the Legislature?

   I almost think we should do away with committees in our legislature. They have their faults: One, They slow up the process. Everything has to ride before a committee before it can be considered by the whole body. 

  Two, They accommodate lobbyists. It is in the committee meetings where the public is allowed to participate. Now, that is wonderful, in and of itself. But, public comment mostly translates into lobbyist involvement. I would not be surprised if the good number of our bills originate from the lobbyists. Committee meetings, then, become the place where the lobbyists come in and make their pitch.

   I am not against everyone having a voice, however. It doesn't matter if you are a lobbyist, you should be allowed a voice. How then to handle it? Whether we have committee meetings or not, the bills should be advertised to those who are interested in the topics. Whether you are a special interest group, or just a citizen, you should be able to get on email lists notifying you of the proposed legislation. Already, there is such a list -- I know, as I have received the emails -- but I think the process should be improved on. I consider on how in 2019, a resolution favoring natural gas won unanimous approval from the legislature. Had those most concerned about climate change have been aware, it seems some would have warned the legislators that natural gas still pours carbon dioxide into the air, even if it isn't as much. And, it seems someone would have informed the legislators that the primary component in natural gas is methane, which traps heat in the air 80-90 times more than carbon dioxide.

  If we are to continue committees, we should find a way to involve the public more, not just the special interest groups. Rather, it would be wonderful if members of the public, even when unaffiliated with special interest groups, studied the issues so much they were experts. Involving such people in the policy-making decisions of our state would be wonderful. Indeed, involving the public more would be wonderful even if they were not experts, and not doing a lot of study.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Natural Gas is not the Answer

   Utah should pull the plug on its natural gas production. The gas is not environment-friendly, as advertised, and extracting it from the earth often comes with fracking, which affects the geological balance beneath the earth. 

  Utah is a major petroleum-producing state, consistently ranking in the top 15. Natural gas is part of that, with Utah having the largest natural gas reserves in the Rocky Mountains. If we expand our development of our natural gas reserves, it will open jobs. It will financially benefit our Native American reservations. It will pour money into our education coffers, since much of the production is on trust lands, where taxes are earmarked for education. 

  A gold mine, Utah is sitting on, should it choose to use it. 

  Nor let it go unnoticed that natural gas produces 50-60 less carbon emissions. In a world concerned about reducing green house emissions, cutting them in half is a notable improvement. The argument is, that natural gas is a win-win, good for the economy and good for the environment.

  But is it? Listen to this reply:

  "We need to be very clear here: Natural gas is not a clean form of energy," says the Climate Reality Project. "Cleaner than coal? Sure -- but that's not saying a heck of a lot. Clean like solar or wind? Get out of here!"

  Indeed, if you study natural gas long enough, your learn it not only leaves us with half the carbon dioxide problem, but it exacerbates the problem of methane in the atmosphere, what with methane being the prime component of natural gas.  While most of the methane leaves the atmosphere in 20 years or less, while the methane is there, it traps heat like 90 times worse than carbon dioxide. Recently -- just this past year -- scientists discovered that perhaps 40 percent more methane in the atmosphere is coming from industrial production than previously thought. In the past, they believed that methane in the atmosphere was more from natural causes, such as cattle manure. Now, knowing more is from man-made causes, it means we should be able to control it more. Natural causes might be hard to cut, but man-made ones can be corrected.

   Cutting natural gas use, then, is one of the things we can do to reduce methane in our skies. 

   We must not bow to the pressure to pour money in our education coffers. And, yes it is good to create jobs. And, bless the Native American reservations.

   But, no, natural gas is not a good solution. Climate change is gaining greater acceptance. Most are realizing it is for real. Natural gas only continues it. We cannot -- should not -- let the temptation to chase after a false solution bring us to extending the dangers of climate change.

   Oh, and I forgot one thing: The fracking and such that accompanies natural gas extraction unsettles our geo plates. In addition to ground water being in danger of being polluted, earthquakes can result. Though they have pointed to small ones and been connected to a limited number of reasonably large ones, as of yet, I cannot help but wonder that if you crack underground plates of ground, if you disturb the weight upon them and below them, if the change in pressure and the bending of the plates could be at least a little bit of a factor in our having so many earthquakes in this age. 

(Index -- Climate change info)

Good Societies are Dependent on Good Families

    How much is a well-functioning society dependent on well-functioning families? Are the things a mother can teach the things that make for a better nation?

   More to the point, is America suffering from the break-up of the family -- and where would we begin if we wanted to repair the home?

   I think there is no question, America is suffering. Consider that the break-up of the home comes in two ways: 1.) The physical break-up. No longer are there two parents. 2.) The educational break-up. No longer do the parents teach their children values. The physical break-up is the lesser of the two. It is advantageous to have two parents, each showering love and care on their children. But, notice that single parents often jump to the front, perhaps being more mindful of their charge, and can be very diligent at raising their children.

  No, the greater break-up is when parents fail to teach, when they disregard the need to instruct in what is right and wrong. 

  We look on the problems of our nation -- the political divide, the violence and condoning of violence, the racial discrimination -- and we wonder how many would be lessened if we had parents who taught lessons. If you are a parent, consider then, do you teach your children against violence, do you teach against racial discrimination, do you teach all the morals of life, and encourage them to be of good character? 

   

The Future No Longer Dipsies and Divies

The future never comes 'round here no more
It's very stuck in the past
 It doesn't dipsy and divy
For its dancing is all in the past.

  Once there were dreams, and once there was hope
Once there was a future to come
   But the dancing days are yesterdays
And no future lies under the sun.

(Index: Poetry, maybe)

Maybe We Should have a Police Force to Police the Police

   Perhaps we should have a small police force just to police the police. In a world of checks and balances, in a world where it is said it is that the nature of those in authority to exercise unjustified domain, in a world where it is said power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely . . .

  Refer to the new agency as P'sP -- that's short for the Police's Police. Give out an emergency number to call every time you think the police are not treating you fairly, say 922. Have a couple of officers staffing the office, waiting for calls, at all times. The officers come in, investigate what just happened, and continue to investigate after the incident.

  Ours is a nation founded on checks and balances. No government power should be beyond review. 

 

The Report did not Address a Number of Concerns

   The report could have addressed more. The Utah Department of Public Safety's report on police reform this week failed to address whether officer shootings of minorities are proportionally higher than officer shootings of Whites.

  It did not address individual cases that brought the outcry, such as the killings of Bernardo Palacios or Patrick Harmon. Since these cases have prompted the outcry of injustice, a review of them would seem appropriate.  

   It did not discuss the use of K-9s, even though an internal review by the Salt Lake City Police Department has identified a number of incidents of concern. 

   It did not discuss the various policies of the different police departments concerning body cams.

   It did not indicate there has been any interviewing or backgrounding or investigations of officers to determine if racial bias does exist. 

   It did not take a stand on whether there should be independent review boards.

   In short, the report did not address a number of things that perhaps it should have and could have. 

Is This a Prophecy of Our Times?

   I wonder if this scripture doesn't become stunning prophecy when you place it in the light of today.

   "Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves; every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards; they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them" (Isaiah 1:23).

   Much of what Isaiah wrote spoke to what would happen in our day. " Princes?  Wouldn't that be those who govern us, our legislators? Rebellious? They are surely rebellious with each other. And, one of the meanings of the Hebrew word for rebellious is stubborn. Democrats and Republicans are stooped in their ways and beliefs, unyielding to each other. Stubborn is the right word. 

   "Everyone loveth gifts and followeth after rewards"? One of the meanings of the Hebrew word for rewards is bribery. Is there such a thing in our congress? Of course. Overriding the way we are governed is the reception of campaign contributions, which corrupts our system, legislation coming from those who cast gifts upon our congressmembers. "Everyone loveth gifts and followeth after rewards"? This is surely what is happening. It becomes remarkable that Isaiah could have foreseen this wickedness thousands of years ago.

    Ah, yes, but now what of the part of the verse that says,  "They judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them"? I do know this, broken families are one of the greatest inadequacies, one of the greatest failings of our day. Of all that is wrong in the world, this is one of our greatest flaws. If Isaiah was prophesying of our day, it should not surprise us he should have seen such a condition. "They judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them"? Our legislators do not even consider this issue, the issue of broken families. It is not even on their table. Have we ever known our congress to have taken up any lengthy discussion of how to deal with all the broken homes?

  No, I do not know that all this is what Isaiah 1:23 is all about. But, I do know much of Isaiah is about our day. If it is, well, these are things we can see in our society today that match with what Isaiah wrote. 

   And, it does become a stunning prophecy, that Isaiah would see with such preciseness the corruption of our political system and that he would see that for all our politicians are concerned about, most of them would give little attention to the break up of the family.

   I would not be surprised, at all, if these things are what Isaiah was speaking of. 

Prison Time Should be Practice Time

   Prison time should be practice time. The convict should be caused to do the things we want him or her to do once they are out of prison.

   Like working. Like treating their family right. Like having worthy habits and hobbies. 

   And, when they work, let them be paid as well as those on the outside. If their family can use these funds, give them to them. That is one of the characteristics we want the prisoner to develop -- a willingness, desire and ability to support their families. If the family needs the full of the paycheck, give it to them. If some of it, though, is not needed by the family, let some of it be used towards their keep at the prison. And, supposing any is left, let it go to a savings account for the prisoner. We want them to learn to save, and we want them to have money when they get out so they can survive.

   Family life? Let the prisoner's family not just visit through a window. No, let the prisoner enjoy real family time with them, playing worthy games, watching worthy movies, reading worthy books together, etc. And, when the prisoner doesn't treat his family correctly, teach him or her that what they are doing is wrong. Show them how they should be treating family members, and how they should be handling different situations. 

   In watching movies, teach them to select worthy ones. When the prisoner gets out, he or she will be going to movies of their choice. Teach them to select good ones. 

DA's Office should not be Buddy-Buddy with Police

   The district attorney's office should not be on buddy-buddy relations with law enforcement officers. 

   More to the point: Yes, we need someone independent from the police investigating police abuses. The police should not be investigating themselves. Could the DA do it, then? Yes. The DA is, in fact, a natural alternative. But, if they are to be an independent investigator, they need to separate themselves from buddy-buddy influence. 

   And, if they are to be the independent investigators, they need to do their own investigating. They should not be dependent on police to go in and gather evidence for them.

   If a criminal were to have license to investigate him- or herself, where would we be? Are we going to have two sets of rules, one for the public, and one for the police? If the common person, when he or she is accused of a crime, is not allowed to investigate themselves, why do we allow police to investigate themselves? Why do we allow an agency next door, filled with buddies, to do the investigation?  

Jason Whittle's Parents Lament Police having Absolute Power to Kill

   "Right now the laws completely protect police no matter how egregious their conduct," says Rob Whittle, father of Jason Whittle, who was killed by police.

  "I was amazed at how airtight the laws are in favor of police who cause death," says Annie Esposito, mother of Jason. "It is so airtight. There is nothing that these police can be convicted of."

Have a Sting to Catch Police Officers Who Would Kill

    We have sting operations to catch those thought to be apt to commit many crimes. I can tell you one sting operation that might be interesting. What if we had sting operations to catch police officers using deadly force when they shouldn't?

   Just saying. 

   Not sure how to pull it off without someone getting killed, so we probably couldn't do it. Not unless we had a way to get to the officer's gun and empty the cartridge without their knowing it. 

Investigations of Officers Should not Grant Them Special Privileges

  The investigation of police officers, when they have used deadly force, should not deviate from the way other investigations are conducted. 

  Take them down to the station. Read them their rights. Ask them if they want a lawyer present. And, interview them unless they refused to be interviewed per the Fifth Amendment. No, they don't get to wait until they've reviewed the body cam. No, they don't get any advantages that the average person doesn't get. 

   I even wonder if we lock them up in jail -- on bond -- just as quick as we do others. Yes, sometimes formal charges are brought, and they are placed in jail. More often, they go home on paid leave. Are those in the general public more likely to be arrested for investigation of a crime than are police officers?

The Teachings of a Mom, or the Teachings of Society?

    She wiped a tear from the corner of her eye and knocked her son's door. It was early. The dew from the night still was clinging to the windows. No answer on first knock, so she knocked, again.

   He came to the door, his tall, handsome, regal, dark-haired self, dressed in his sheriff's department uniform and ready for work. 

   She threw her arms around him.

   "Son, I've been thinking all night long about what you told me," she offered, as their embrace ended. She referred to a phone call they had had late that last night, he telling her of how his day had gone, including the arrest of a homeless couple for sleeping in an abandoned building. Trespass, you know. Invasion of property.

   "Oh, son, what harm did it do that they were there? They simply were seeking shelter."

  The officer-son's eyes dropped, but he did not reply.

   "Tim, I wonder what you've become. What you've learned and what you've become, comes not from my teachings, but from those of society." She paused, a gentle look deep in her eyes. "Society teaches us not to tolerate the homeless when they wander into places for shelter. Sometimes, we even shoot them. I know what you say, a man's home is his castle, and he should be able to defend it."

  She paused, love still abundant in her eyes.  "So they say, son. That is what the world teaches you."

  Another pause. For, a moment, she searched for what to say.

  "Tim, I'm your mother. I love you, very much. But you are not learning from me, but from society. I beg you not to let go of teachings from me, your mother."

   Another pause, this time as she prepared her thoughts on something that had happened years ago when he had shot a fleeing man. "Son, that shooting three years ago, I thought on it last night, as well. You go to the police academy. . . . And, your training from the police academy had you kill him. I would that my teaching was just as important as that of the police academy."

 She wiped a single tear from her eye, before breaking out in an all-out bawl and gathering him in her arms in a desperate hug.

  "I think of those from Mexico," she said. "And, of how often you have said we should built a wall against them, of how our president wants that wall, of how they are called illegal, and of how we are upset they are using our welfare system."

 Again, their embrace ended, and she parted to look him gently in the eye. "No mercy. No mercy for the poor. No, Tim -- not in these teachings from society. I love you, son. But, please remember the teachings of your youth. I taught you compassion. I taught you to care for those in need. I taught you to share. I taught you to love others." 

She reached out and touched him on the arm. "I must be going, Tim. You must be going. I don't want to make you late for work. But, know I love you."

She turned and walked back to her car. As she drove off, gentle tears continued from her eyes. But, they were soft, not bawling tears. There was comfort in her heart, for she had performed her role as a mother. She had taught her son. And, she knew there was hope that he might listen.  

 

The Homeless Population Intersects with the Ex-Con Population

    There's a portion of our homeless population who are there because of how difficult it is to fit in if you are an ex-convict. It's harder to get a job, and its harder to get accepted for housing. 

   So, you end up on the streets.

   If we want our ex-cons to reform, we need to provide them with the chance of succeeding -- succeeding in getting jobs, and succeeding in getting housing. Without these two things, they often go one of two directions. They either end up homeless, or they end up resorting to crime to make ends meet. 

   We are fools for not seeing them into jobs and housing. 

'Tis a Rough Year to be a Third-Party Candidate

    I wonder if this election was especially problematic for those of us who ran third-party. If our campaign material arrived before the ballots, voters were not ready to consider our races, and likely trashed the material before it could even make a mental impression. 

   But, if our campaign material arrives two weeks after the ballots went out, by then many -- who knows how many -- will have already voted. So, our material was wasted if it arrived before the ballots, and wasted if it arrives much after the ballots.

    All our campaigning had to be compacted into about a week's time, if it were to have full impact. 

   Democrats and Republicans do not suffer so much from this problem. When the voter gets the ballot, and knows nothing about the candidates, they simply vote based on which party they lean toward. Or, if they know the incumbent, they might suppose they know a little about him or her, and vote based on having knowledge of that candidate. 

Ranked-Choice Voting Makes More Votes Count

   Ranked-choice voting ensures that everyone's vote counts, even if you vote for someone who isn't going to win. Sometimes, we fail to vote for someone we like because we know they aren't going to win, and we are afraid voting for them is just a wasted vote.

   Not so, with ranked-choice voting. You give your first choice, your second choice, your third choice, and your fourth choice. The votes are then tallied, with only the first-choice votes being tallied. If no single candidate takes 50 percent of the vote, then the candidate who received the least votes is eliminated, and the ballots of those who voted for him are then rechecked, to see who their second choice was, and their votes are reassigned to that person.

   You keep doing that -- eliminating the bottom vote-getter and reassigning their votes -- until someone gathers in 50 percent of the vote.

   So, you can vote for who you like and not feel like you are wasting your vote. If your person is eliminated, your vote will be reassigned to one of your lesser choices and your vote could still end up helping a viable candidate. 

The Gentiles Came, Colonized, and Desolate Places became Inhabited

"For more are the children of the desolate, than the children of the married wife" (Isaiah 54:1). To me, that seems to be saying there are more people adopted to the covenant and to the House of Israel than there are those who are of literal descent. 

The next verse is often used to speak of how the Church is throughout all the world, and of how everyone need not come to Salt Lake City to be part of the gathering. That is surely true. "Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thy habitations," says that passage.  I wonder if it also could be saying that the adoption of people into the House of Israel is the enlarging of the tent, and the stretching of the curtains. To adopt the Gentiles, it requires such an expansion. With what is on each side of this verse, it would seem that is one of the meanings of what is being said. 

And, the next verse says, "Thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles and make the desolate cities to be inhabited." The land of Israel was hardly populated for centuries. It was not until the return of the Jews that it became populated. But, this verse speaks not of that, for this verse refers to the Gentiles inhabiting the "desolate cities." Rather, It seems to me to be referring to the United States. The U.S. was not heavily populated, as a whole, before its settlement by the "Gentiles." It is not so inaccurate to call it desolate, I don't believe. But, with the arrival of the Pilgrims and the colonization of America, this scripture was fulfilled. "Thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles and make desolate cities to be inhabited." The Gentiles were adopted to the House of Israel, and came to America and made the desolate cities to be inhabited. 

Take Three Words Out of These Laws

   Let us change Utah's Stand Your Ground Law to read, "An individual is justified in threatening or using force against another individual when and to the extent that that threat or force is necessary to defend the individual or another individual against the imminent use of unlawful force."

  That deletes, "the individual believes." As is, with the words, "the individual believes" in the law, no one can question what the individual does, no one can question what he or she believes. If the individual says he felt threatened, no one but he knows what he believes. If he says he felt threatened, that is the end of it. No trial, no indictment, no arrest . . . even if in fact it was cold-blooded murder. 

  Keep the Stand Your Ground Law. Don't toss it out. It belongs in our code of laws. We do want laws that protect you, that give you the right to use weapons to protect yourself and your family. We just don't want language to seep into those laws that allow murders to march right alongside those who are legitimately protecting themselves. 

   And, change Utah's Castle Law to say:  "A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate an attack upon his habitation." That, likewise, takes out the words, "he reasonably believes." It takes out his or her right to kill someone maliciously and frame it as having been necessary.

Two Amendments Necessary to Fix Our Supreme Court

    The Constitution leaves it to Congress to say how many justices there shall be. So, we could leave this issue of the Democrats stacking the court at that: It is Constitutional, so it's okay.

   But, politicizing the court is clearly not good. Already, the austere body of justices are under great influence to be either conservative or liberal. This should not be.

   We cannot simply pass a law, limiting the number of justices to, say, nine. There would be nothing stopping a future Congress from simply dumping that law and going ahead with the stacking of the court. 

   If we can see it is not good to stack the court politically, we should do something about it.

   And, that means an Amendment. What else can be done? We should amend the Constitution so it says there be a specified number of justices.  

   One wonders if a second amendment should also be considered, one taking politics out of the court, hopefully entirely. This could only be done if we take the appointment process away from the president and do not leave it in the hands of those who desire to make it a political appointment.  That means, the courts, themselves, would be left to make the appointments. One option would be for the chief justice to nominate and the other justices to confirm. Or, you could have the appointment process done by the appellate courts.  

  We should see that the politicization of the court is not good. If we can do something about it, we should. When something breaks, you fix it.

Is there a Story like that of Mesut Ozil?

   So, you think only in the U.S. are there protests over police killings? And, you think only in the U.S. are athletes taking to twitter to vehemently object? 

   Turn your eyes to Nigeria, where there is outrage over a young man killed after a stop-and-search operation, only to have 10 more allegedly killed by police during the protesting. 

   And, turn your eyes to Mesut Ozil, the German soccer star, who is decrying the police violence. "Horrible to hear what's been going on in Nigeria," he tweets. "Let's make this a trending topic everywhere." 

   This is not the first time Ozil has taken on the world's social issues. He literally interjected himself into one world affair. In December, he tweeted against the treatment of Uyghurs in China. That brought a backlash from the Chinese. Their China Central Television promptly cancelled coverage of a soccer game between Arsenal, who Ozil plays for, and Manchester City. 

   Mesut Ozil, reportedly the highest-paid German player ever. Mesut Ozil, who won a record five German player of the year awards. Mesut Ozil, who won a title with Real Madrid to interrupt Barcelona's dominance of the league. Mesut Ozil, who helped lead Germany to the World Cup in 2014.

   Mesut Ozil, whose team, Arsenal, is currently locking him out of the team, setting its 25-player roster without him on it, suggesting it can only have so many foreign players and Ozil is the odd man out.

   Mesut Ozil, who met with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2018, posing for pictures before the election. The controversy that erupted from that rocked the German nation, and resulted in his resigning from the national team. "I have two hearts, one German and one Turkish," Ozil tweeted.  ". .  . for me, having a picture with President Erdogan wasn't about politics or elections. It was about me respecting the highest office of my family's country."

  Mesut Ozil, who also made news for declining to sing Germany's national anthem. Perhaps, then, Mesut Ozil, the international version of Colin Kaepernick. Mesut Ozil, today was his 32nd birthday. Happy birthday, Mesut.

Those in Jail Awaiting Trial Should not be Subject to Illegal Searches

   Those in our prisons are convicted, obviously enough, but consider that those in the county jail are primarily only awaiting trial. No conviction. We place them in jail without their even being convicted.

  So, should we be searching them? Should we be recording their phone calls? Should we be taking away the basic liberties all the rest of us have? Remember, these are people who are not yet convicted.

  It can be argued that if you don't search their cells, they are going to have drugs as sure as a night is darker than a day. True. But, what of society at large? If we allowed our police to march down the streets, searching every home, they would find drugs that way, too.

  These people are not convicted. I would argue most of them shouldn't be in jail. You shouldn't toss someone in jail without a trial. But, if you are going to have them in jail, they should have the right to not have their possessions, their cells, searched without a warrant. You want to search them, you get a warrant, just like you would get a warrant before searching the rest of us.  

With Pandemic, Consider Split Schools; But, How do We Fund Them?

    Perhaps, with the pandemic, Utah should further consider split-session schools. Class sizes would be cut in half. Social distancing would be easier.

   Is it for lack of funding that this is not being done? You would have to hire twice as many teachers. Where would the money come from? Should we this year have repeated the initiative from 2018, asking voters to approve a gasoline tax increase? It failed then. Why would it pass now?

  In considering funding, one wonders if voluntary contributions should be encouraged. Could we not open a kitty for volunteer funding? Down in the gym, post the names of the 100 top contributors each year, with their amounts. Then, list all who donated anything at all, in alphabetical order.  

Prisoner Conversations Should not Automatically be Recorded

   Prisoners should not have their phone calls recorded. There are laws against illegal search and seizure, beginning with the one in the Constitution. 

   To begin with, those in county jails have not even been convicted, but are awaiting trial. How do we justify recording their conversations when no crime against them has been found? Isn't there a principle called innocent until proven guilty? If I or you had our phone conversations tapped, we would be outraged. How do we take away a right that should be given equally to them?

  But, even those not waiting trial -- even those who are convicted -- should not automatically have their conversations recorded. If there is probable cause, the prison keepers should get a warrant before recording the conversation. 

   Says Amendment Four in the Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation . . ."

  When a prisoner gets on the phone, it is not uncommon for them to discuss whether they belong there. Indeed, the conversations of those in county jails awaiting trial go heavily this direction. Why should prosecutors be able to collect details against the prisoners this way? We can see that if they were telling their lawyer details, those should not be subject to being recorded. Why does it suddenly become okay to intercept the conversation just because it isn't a lawyer on the other end? What they are discussing is the same whether it is a lawyer on the other end or a friend. 

  We wouldn't invite the prisoner to listen in on the D.A.'s conversations as he told of his strategies for convicting the prisoner. Why should not the defense not be afforded equal treatment? 

Identify What We are Doing Wrong in Containing the Disease

    I would, indeed, have us determine the hygiene practices of those coming down with COVID-19. Quiz them: Do you wear a face mask whenever in the presence of others? Do you often let it slip off your nose, thus covering only your mouth? Do you keep the nose ridge pinched tight so air cannot leak in? How often are you part of group gatherings? How often are those gatherings indoors? Do you stand in the same spot while talking to others for extended periods of time? Etc.

   But, I would not make answering the survey mandatory. If someone did not want to disclose their practices, that would be their right. Public health is important. Doing what we can to fight it is right. But, it is also true the people have their rights to not to give personal information.

   The disease is communicable. It only spreads through contact. If we are failing to contain it, it most likely is that we are failing somewhere in the process of face-masking, social distancing or such. If we inquire into those getting the disease to determine what it is they are failing to do, we might well be able to identify what we need to do to stop the spread. 

The COVID-19 Crisis Means We Should Hire More Teachers

    We could perhaps, yet, do a better job in responding to the COVID-19 crisis in regards to our schools. If teachers are there, teaching those showing up in person for class, then also having to teach virtually those home on COVID concerns, that is double duty, double the work, in some cases, depending on the workload for those at home. 

   If we were as responsive as we should be, if we were able to fill the need as quick as it reared its head (and we should be), we would immediately hire more teachers to meet the need. Even now, we should be looking at whether we can do this. The school year is mostly ahead. It is not too late to do something. Does this require more legislative funding? Can more funding be found? Should we be holding an emergency legislative session to address this? 

   I don't have a seat close to what is going on. But, from what I do see, we definitely should have our legislature in session, charged with finding funds to meet this need. Teacher salary has improved in recent years, and perhaps that is why there is not a greater outcry. Still, if the workload is as it appears -- if they are in some cases working way past quitting time -- we should find a way to hire more teachers to do that extra work.

   Perhaps, in some cases, we have done exactly that. I don't know. I know we haven't done so in all cases, though.

The Person to be Trusted With a Gun, is the Person Who Laments

   Judge gun owners by their attitude. If they relish the day they might kill -- if they follow the mantra of "Make my day" -- trust them not with the gun. But, if they deeply lament that they should ever have to use their weapon -- if they mourn that they should ever have to bring death upon another person -- then that is the person who can be trusted with the gun. 

We Could do a Better Job Mapping the Virus

   We could -- and should -- do a better job determining the hygiene practices of  those coming down with COVID-19.

   Fill out this paper, son. Do you wear your face mask whenever in the presence of others? Do you social distance all the time? How often do you go hand-to-face? 

  And, ask them about their attitudes. Do you believe COVID-19 is no worse than the common cold? Do you believe it an infringement of your Constitutional rights to ask you to wear a face mask? Etc.

  All we can learn about those getting the virus will help us map a course to avoiding the virus.

Shall We not Think What Will Happen if Everyone Packs?

    Shall we not think what will happen if everyone packs? We are becoming more a nation of guns, not less. With the pandemic and with the social upheaval, with the mass shooting previous to the pandemic, more and more people are rushing out to buy guns.

   Shall we not think what will happen if it reaches a point where everyone has a gun? Every time a heated dispute breaks out, the gun will be there to settle it. And, you think there won't be more murders? 

   Bless those who would protect themselves and their families. If they buy a gun, may they have peace in their hearts. May they abhor the day they are forced to use it. May they lament that they should ever have to bring death upon another. 

   But, death will come. The upright may never use the gun save to protect themselves and their loved ones. But, a great number of people will not be so righteous. Each time the heat of the moment arises, there is danger they will turn to their gun.

Are there Times Someone Shouldn't have a Gun?

  Do we take guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them? We should at least try. Are there other times guns should be removed from someone's hands?

   I think of the Wild West, and of how they debated guns, just as we do today. The courts back then ruled that when the Second Amendment says Congress shall make no law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, that didn't mean guns should be allowed in all places at all times.
   Back then, they did restrict usage. If you rode into Dodge City, you were required to turn your gun in, same as you were in a lot of towns in the Wild West.
   Gun control, circa 1870. (I'm just saying, they had it.)
   The Second Amendment says, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The security of the nation -- this free state -- is not at risk by taking guns from those who make threats.
   It is the right of the people, at large, to keep and bear guns. And, you as an individual have the right to a gun -- unless you do something to restrict that right.
   Like, make a threat.
   The gun is an instrument of death. With the gun, comes the ability to kill. Do we say everybody in society should be given the ability to kill? Those with mental disabilities? Those who threaten others? If the gun is too much a responsibility for you, the gun should be taken away. Some have compared this to the right to drive a car. While the gun is an instrument of death, the car is but an instrument of travel. If we are to be careful with who we give the right to drive, we should be even more careful who we give the right to kill.

   
 

The Question of Guns Should Receive Some Thought

   Deciding our gun policies in America should come from reflection, in a search for what is right. We should not shame each other for pondering this question.

   We may be quick to anger with those who do not believe as we do. Too often, we become indignant, even a little huffy.

   Why? Is it so wrong that the other person considers the issue, pauses and ponders and simply wants to do what is right? Weighing these things in our minds is not wrong.

   I once held the view that whatever the first thirteen words of the Constitution said, the last fourteen 

stood on their own. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Then, I learned more about war in those times. I learned how, when it broke out, the soldiers brought their own guns. They didn't march into camp and say, "Okay, issue me a gun." They brought their own.

   Thus, the first part of the Second Amendment. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state."

   Today, you no longer bring a gun with you. It can be argued, then, that the second part of the amendment is no longer binding.

   I would say, though, not so quick. The issue is still a question of doing what's right. And, it is not just a single question, but many questions. Is it right to take guns from people? Are they dangerous? Are they necessary to protect us? Will our nation fall if the citizenry do not have guns? If we take guns from our people, will criminals be the only ones who have them?

   Etc.

   It is not so wrong to ask ourselves these questions. When you want to do what is right, you should weigh these questions, you should search for the truth.

   

Federal Task Forces Might not be All They are Cracked Up to be

    One must wonder at the federal task forces on crime. Are the forces assembled on the spot, just to qualify for federal funding? Do we count as a "fugitive" someone who did no worse than moving without notifying their probation officer?

   I encountered a raid a couple weeks back, The officers I spoke to did not fully know what was going on, telling me they were called in and dispatched at the last moment. They arrived knowing little more than that they were told to be there for the arrest of the fugitive.

   Speaking to the "fugitive" who was arrested, he told me he had failed to "check in."

   So, what? Maybe 20 officers descend on him? The U.S. Marshals call the accompanying agencies at the last moment and have them participate, just so they can justify it as a federal task force raid, and justify their abuse of taxpayer money?

   It is an abuse of funds. As taxpayers, we should be wary of this. I will be attempting to make an FOI (Freedom of Information) Act request, asking the U.S. Marshals Service to list how many times the Salt Lake City office has been involved in such raid in 2020, or at least in the the last few months, and to say why the person was being arrested and what the warrant was for in each case. 

   I will not be surprised if the Marshals Service fails to release that information.  

Houses Could be Made Impenetrable

    The gun is not alone in the defense of the home. I think of the story in the Book of Mormon, which is a book of scripture in my religion, and of how it says the Nephites built fortresses to defend against their enemies, the Lamanites. 

    More than a gun can protect a home, more than an attack dog.

   If the criminal cannot get in, he cannot harm -- short of burning or blowing up your home. I wonder at security systems, and how they are made to detect intruders, and how they could be made to detect any movement after, say, midnight. The security system could awake and notify you in your bed, and knowing that that was not you or your family, you could call the police that instance without going downstairs to investigate. 

   But, more than that. I think of making the house impenetrable, doors that automatically shut and deadbolt behind you every time you enter -- if you want to go that far -- much like a car that locks automatically when you turn the ignition key. I wonder at bullet proof windows. I wonder at windowless homes, or strong panels that retract over the windows. 

   However safe and secure you want to be, then be.

   Many people procure guns just to protect them in their homes. They do it in the name of protecting their families, which is a good cause. It is said there are 3.7 million home burglaries in a year. Of that number, someone is home and suffers violence seven percent of the time.

   I have never heard of a frenzy to safeguard a home this way. I wonder why. Our families are so important that many of us rush to buy guns to protect them, but yet I have never heard of one person so concerned about the protection of his or her family that they make their home impenetrable like this.

   Why not?

'No Spiritual Blessing Shall be Withheld'

   Calm the weary heart. 

   The church to which I belong, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held its semi-annual conference this weekend. Speaker after speaker spoke of the challenges facing the world, COVID-19 and social unrest. The prophet and others decried racism and rioting. 

   They spoke to the events of our day. 

   Throughout all the talks, they spoke of optimism, and of these being times in which we can grow and improve ourselves.

    Among the many things were said, was this promise:

    "This is the dispensation when no spiritual blessing shall be withheld from the righteous," President Russell M. Nelson said. And, I thought of the prophecy in Joel 2, "I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and daughters shall prophesy, and your old dream dreams and your young men shall see visions. And upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit."

Guns, Guns, Guns . . . We cannot Outlaw Them

 What matters, is what is right. I speak of the Second Amendment, and of gun laws, and the use of guns. 

 In deciding what should be done, we should pursue what is right. We should reflect on the issue. Weigh it. Then, simply not drift from what is right. Pursuit of truth demands no less. 

  Truth is not always popular.

  I have thought on this issue much in the last ten or so years. Much. My thoughts have ranged. I've thought, the Constitution says don't infringe on the right to keep and bear on arms, so that should be the end of it. And, on the flip side, I've thought how the same Constitution says the reason for not infringing on the people's right to bear arms is because in those days, when you went to war, you brought your own gun. If arms were taken from the people, and an enemy attacked, the country couldn't defend itself. These days, that isn't the case. No soldier brings his own gun with him (or her) when they join the armed services. The military provides all the weapons. 

  Truth is not always popular. But, I do so think my thoughts contain truth.

   Through all my thoughts, or at least going back a number of years, I've been able to see how an abundance of guns is not a good thing. The gun is the tool of death. It was probably created with no other purpose. With it, people are killed. It accommodates killing, makes it easier. No other weapon -- not a knife, not a rope, not a sledge hammer -- makes the killing of another person so easy. Just touch your finger lightly on the trigger, and -- bang, bang -- the other person is dead. Easy-peasy. 

   Without guns, if two people get in an argument, that is it. The argument ends and they walk away. Or, maybe they fight, and potentially one pounds the other's head against the pavement and kills him (or her).

   But, if there are guns, anger has its weapon. Death is more certain. If both have guns, each knows they have to be the first to use it, or the other person will. The chances one person will kill another are enhanced when you have an abundance of guns.  

   Truth is not always popular, but I do not think my thoughts are wrong. 

   What then do we do? Do we confiscate people's guns? Do we outlaw them? I've wondered on that. I've thought on it. If I am to reflect on the issue, as I said at the top of this, then, yes, I must reflect on whether guns should be outlawed. You don't weigh an issue any other way, and I did say we should weigh this matter.

   Supposing we were to reach a point where we decided society would be safer if guns were outlawed, we still couldn't do it. Too many of us are against it. The rule of democracy says give the people what they want. We are the rulers of this land, and too many of us favor the abundance of guns that we should go against them. 

   But, it would be good if we discussed the matter with each other. If we reason with each other, perhaps that reasoning will be of benefit.  

Don't Erase the Law, but Make it Better

    We have opportunity, if we want, to change a law for the better. Not to erase it, but to improve it. 

    No person should be given the right to say whether their killing another person is justified. We can have laws that say a person is justified in protecting themselves. We can have laws saying a person is justified in defending themselves. 

   Those are good things, defending yourself and protecting your family. We do not want to change them. But, leave it at that. Let the law say you can use a weapon to defend yourself and your family.

  Current law goes further. It says if you believe you are endangered, you can use lethal force. Thus, all the killing party needs to do is say they felt threatened. Courts cannot question them, because the law leaves it in their hands to decide if they were threatened. 

  We should take that power out of the hands of the person doing the killing, and leave it in the hands of the court. 

We Should not Allow Murderers to March Alongside the Righteous

   Nobody wants to approve of murder, I don't believe. If we have laws that allow murder, we hopefully will be anxious to change them. Does this change if we are gun advocates? Hopefully not. Hopefully, gun advocates want no part of condoning murder. They support the Second Amendment, but hopefully do not let their support of the Second Amendment lead them to condoning murder.

   Thou shalt not kill is one of the Ten Commandments. Killing is one of the gravest sins a person can commit.

  Law in Utah states that a person is justified in killing another if he or she believes it was necessary. Such language leaves the killer with determining whether the killing was justified. He or she just has to say they felt threatened, no matter if they were not threatened, at all. If they say they were threatened, that is the end of it. The other person is dead. Often there are no witnesses. Just say you were threatened, and no one can question you. 

   Is such a law just? Is it an invitation to murder?

   It will help if the other person had a gun, or a knife. If the crime scene shows the other person had a gun or knife, then it will seem reasonable to assume that person could have threatened the killer. 

   We need not get rid of the right to protect yourself, and the right to protect your family. These things are good. We do not want to take away these necessary freedoms.

   But, the favor of a law can carry too far. When it allows not only the good people to kill those who are bad, but those who are bad to kill others, then that law has reached beyond what is righteous. Evilness comes not so much in marching alone on its own, but in marching alongside the righteous. We should not allow murders to march alongside the righteous.