The Mexican Police could be the Key to Immigration Reform

   You protect your women from rape. Check: You protect any women from rape, whether they are "yours" or not.

   Pause for a moment and ask yourself why we have police. Isn't it to protect you from crime? Isn't that what police agencies are created for? Might I suggest, then, the police in Mexico are charged with the responsibility of protecting women crossing their state from rape.

   Protect the other emigrants, as well, whether you do it with a national police or with a national guard. Escort them from one end of the country to the other. But, whatever you do, protect the women and children. Let us not begrudge them such protection. Let us appeal to the Mexican government to provide care to all those who travel within the borders of Mexico.

    We speak of immigration reform. Well, a change like this might well amount to the biggest and most significant improvement in our immigration system in the last 50 years. If you protect the migrants from the traffickers from one end of the journey to the other, human trafficking is eliminated. If you deny the cartels access to the immigrants, you are taking the cartels out of the equation. How could not a simple adjustment like this, then, be a major game-changer?  

   And, who should oppose it? Protecting women and children is something we all want to do. Nobody should want any ill fortune to come to any of these people, the migrants.

They Say Now is not the Time for Politics, but it is

   Because they matter, we search for answers. It it were my neighbor who died in Boulder or Atlanta, how would I react?

   In horror.

   How would I react? This would be someone I deeply loved, deeply cared for. All the questions of why, why, why would descend upon me. The details? I would want to know every detail. The murderer? Why he did it? What caused him (or her) to kill another person? All these questions would rush my mind, begging for answers.

   Tears don't fall, but what they seek ground to land on. I would be seeking ways to help, to make a difference. My tears would be seeking purpose. They would be searching for a landing

   Should we have gun laws? Should we, instead, arm everyone with guns? What can we do to keep members of our society from going off? Oh, no, I wouldn't be saying, I'll take up those questions in six months. They would be screaming through my mind -- now! 

 

Three Quick Shortcomings in the Medical System

   Improvements could be made in our medical system. I think of three quick shortcomings.

   (1.) When the doctor is afraid of being sued, he or she clams up -- and this means they quit diagnosing as thoroughly as they should. You are asking them how the procedure went, and they provide little input. They need to be diagnosing what is still wrong, but don't, because they are fearful that any shortcomings or things that went wrong in surgery, will be used against them in a lawsuit. If the surgery left you worse off, they don't want that on record. So, they simply do not ask all the questions they should to properly diagnose you.

   (2.) The person deciding if you should receive a surgery is usually the surgeon, him- or herself. They make their living off the surgeries, so of course they are inclined to recommend them. And, they have a product that is beneficial. Surgeries do help. They do wonderful things. The doctor, feeling he or she has something that is a good product, and knowing he or she will make a profit by performing the surgery, perhaps recommends it even at times when it is not necessary.

   (3.) Insurance protocols throw the process on an assembly line. Doctors do things by checklist, rather than need. As long as they can check off the item, saying they did it, that becomes their objective. 

   

You Might Just Agree Mount Rushmore Does have an Offensive Past

    He was born in St. Charles, Idaho,  of LDS polygamist parents. And, he grew up to be the KKK practitioner who carved the faces of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt into the Black Hills of South Dakota. 

   Mount Rushmore. Now, since you're hearing rumblings of how Mount Rushmore should be taken down, listen up. You you are dismissing the very thought of them being dismantled as being too, too much -- way too much -- cancel culture, cancel culture run amok. Really? you ask. Take down the monuments to four of our greatest presidents? Now, there's some kind of patriotism.

   Oh, it's his birthday. By the time you read this, it will be the 154th birthday of Gutzon Borglum, who was born March 25, 1867 in Idaho, as we said, to polygamous parents. Don't hold on to the part about him being LDS too tight. The family left the church not long later, perhaps without him even being baptized.

  But, hold on to that part about him being tied tightly to the KKK. We'll address that more, later. But, first, let's deal with the question of whether if the Native Americans want to take those sculptures down, they have the right to do so. There's something about owning land that gives you the right to say how the land is used.

   And, the Native Americans owned all of this land, right? And, we stole it from them by invading them, right? And, that's all we're talking about, right? 

   No, not at all. Their ownership has been much more definitive. What I'm saying is they owned it in very fashion. They pretty much deeded it to them, signed a contract and said, Here, take it; it's yours. Just like you have deed to your home, or your farm, they owned the Black Hills of South Dakota. The U.S. government signed the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1868, granting the Native Americans exclusive use of the region. But, when gold was discovered, the U.S. went back on its word, stealing the land right back. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Lakota Indians' favor, awarding them $17.1 million in damages. The natives said, No dice. It's not about money. It's our land. It's not for sale for $17.1 million or even more. Keep your money, because we're keeping our land. 

   Now, a little more about this Gutzon Borglum. Before he came to work on Mount Rushmore, he worked on a similar project in Georgia, aimed at creating a monument to Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis, the three heroes of the Confederacy. He worked with the KKK on creating that monument until there was a falling out, and he picked up his toys, so to speak, and erased his work, and left the project for another sculptor to finish. 

   Only to end up in the hills of South Dakota, carving Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, and Roosevelt. There's actually more to the story. You will want to study why he selected those four presidents, and how it was not so much they, themselves, he wanted to honor. Instead, he cited each one for something they did, and Mount Rushmore, to him, stood for those things. Study how their is a a vault at Mount Rushmore -- one not open to the public -- but how it contains documents that tell of his connections to the KKK and might suggest what meanings he had in mind for Mount Rushmore. 

  Take down the monuments? The Supreme Court has ruled that $17.1 million is all the Sioux deserve. At this point, with the Court having ruled as it has, it is all the Sioux have legal right to. It might take a new case reaching the High Court, but there are those of us who think that if the treaty gave the land away, it should be honored. Just like Roe vs. Wade could be overturned, so should this. 

   And, then, whether the monuments to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt come down should all be decided by the Native Americans who are the rightful owners of the land. 

Throwing Religion at Each Other as We Consider Children at the Border

   So, are we being but self-righteous, sanctimonious, and using the scriptures as weapons if we quote the Savior saying, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of heaven," and throw it at our conservative friends, saying, "Right there is why we should let in all the children down at the border"?

   Holier than thou? Are we taking shaming to a new level -- the worst level -- shaming them by insinuating that if they do not agree we should let in the hundreds, the thousands of unaccompanied children, then they just aren't good Christians?

   I mean, Christ did go on to say, "Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." Unload that scripture on these conservative friends of ours upset with the children at the border.

  I believe in the scriptures. I find it not wrong to tie them into our decisions in what we do on social issues. In fact, I think there's not a better place to start -- when you are looking at social issues and deciding what stand to take -- than the scriptures. Some will say, don't mix politics with religion. I suggest, instead, we could use more of the morals found in the scriptures as we search our way in what to do in this world of affairs we live in.

   But, no, I am not trying to tell the conservative he or she is a wicked person if they can't see that the scripture would have us let in all the children -- and others -- rushing our borders. I will offer this, though: For years, they have been throwing it at us that it is we who are not following the gospel. They point to scripture that speaks of following the laws of the land and they get very indignant with the portion of immigrants who cross the border in defiance of the laws of our land. They toss religion at me. They use it for a weapon. I am not taking this shaming to a new level. They already have. They would suggest that I believe differently than they, it is I who am not adhering to the teachings of the church.

  That said, let both sides have their beliefs without us judging them as being non-Christians, without suggesting they are in open defiance of the principles of Christianity. I will add this, as part of my opinion: A person doesn't have to base their beliefs on what scripture says. Some of the best thinkers on social issues, who reach the soundest decisions, are not even Christian. They are atheists, at times.

  But, if a person does base their beliefs on what they read in scripture, that is not wrong. Let him (or her). But, let it be realized, accepted, and agreed that we are not all going to apply the scriptures the same way. I know this, emphatically: Those upset with immigrants coming across the border include some of the best people, best Christians, best followers of Christ I know.  

Unaccompanied Children at the Border? Invite Parents to Join Them

   Wish we took just a little more of a family approach at the border with all the children showing up. Place every unaccompanied child with a member of his or her own family, preferably a parent. If they have family already in the U.S., help reunite them. If they don't, go back and find their parents and get them into the U.S., as well. A lot of times, the parents send the kids here because they want them to have a better life than what they, themselves, have. Why not invite the parents to join them? Why? Why is not going back and getting the parents the right thing to do? It is.

Would This Help Sweep Heroin Right off the Streets?

   Want to sweep heroin and methamphetamines right off the streets of America? Well, perhaps we just received a heads-up as to how to go about it. Listen up, if this means anything to you -- if ridding our country of drugs has value in your way of life, listen up, listen up, listen up.

  Vanita Gupta, President Biden's nominee for associate attorney general. We just learned she owns stock in a company called Avantor, didn't we?  Now, Avantor means nothing to you -- until you learn it has offices in Mexico, and a key product it sells is being connected to the cartels' production of heroin and methamphetamines. Now, how about that? Now, we are getting somewhere.

   So, acetic anhydride -- that's what they call this stuff. How significant is it? Well, other than the sap drained from the opium flowers, acetic anhydride is the only thing needed to make heroin. Take away a component like acetic anhydride, and there isn't even such a thing as heroin. Gone, pa-too. Opium plus acetic anhydride equals heroin. The recipe is simple, and you take away one of the key ingredients, and there is no more heroin. 

   Not too many companies offer this acetic anhydride. Avantor does. Now, yes, Avantor is an American company, but you might find it interesting to learn Avantor has offices in Mexico to accommodate customers down there. What customers -- right? Just who down in Mexico would be needing something called acetic anhydride? Now, Avantor might not sell to the cartels directly, but there is plenty reason to wonder if Aventor's acetic anhydride finds its way into the cartel's possession. Check: Containers loaded with acetic anhydride with Aventor's name on them have been found at cartel sites. 

   And, there's reason to wonder if Avantor is involved in the illicit production of acetic anhydride and heroin right here in the U.S., without having to funnel things up from Mexico. Mexico may be one route, but not every bit of heroin in the U.S. is smuggled in across our southern border. Some could have a stamp on it, saying, "Support domestic commerce. This heroin was made right here in the USA."

   How's this for a coincidence then? Avantor is headquartered just outside of Philadelphia. And, it just so happens that the largest outdoor heroin market on the East Coast is also located just outside Philly. Just a coincidence, huh? No reason for suspicion. 

   So, what should we do? To begin with, we should consider banning acetic anhydride, outright. It is also used to make cigarettes, and fragrances. What would happen if we were to ban it? Are those needs enough to keep it around? And, perhaps there are legitimate drug uses in hospitals, where acetic anhydride is used to make necessary opioids. So, consider whether we move the production of acetic anhydride to the government (and face criticism its just one more step toward our being a socialistic country), or whether we leave it in the hands of private companies. My thought is, whichever is the best way to keep it out of the hands of crooks is the better route, regardless what might be "socialism."

    Secondly -- and this is more important -- we need an investigation, a big one, a massive one. This thing screams for investigation -- SCREAMS, in uppercase letters. I mean, so here we have an open heroin market right in the shadow of Avantor's headquarters? And, we don't dispatch a few DEA officers to mull around and find what's up with that? And, don't stop our investigation there. Avantor isn't the only company offering a product like acetic anhydride. March down to Kingport, Tenn,, and investigate the Celanese Corporation and Eastman Chemical. They offer components similar to acetic anhydride. Any leak of product out onto the streets there? Or, are those companies careful in their distribution? 

   Nor do you stop there. Not at all. You go right down into Mexico, to Avantor's offices. Who are they selling to? Acetic anhydride is used in making fragrances and cigarettes. Is that who they are selling to? Or, to holding companies that make you wonder if there is a laundering scheme?

  So, there you have it, the great acetic anhydride scandal. Let's look into it. Where's our police? This is what having a DEA is all about. This is what fighting drugs coming into our country is all about. Let's do something.    

Vanita Gupta's Avantor Connections Should Nix Her as Associate A.G.

Vanita Gupta, President Biden's nomination for associate attorney general, should not be approved, now that it has been disclosed she owns $11-55 million in Avantor.

Ahh, Avantor means nothing to you, does it? -- without learning the company operates in Mexico, where it has sold the component allowing the cartels to make heroin and methamphetamine. It can be argued she is divesting in the stock, and didn't realize the product likely drifts into the hands of the cartels, anyway.

Not good enough. You are responsible for your business connections. You are being nominated for a post in an investigative agency. If you don't investigate your own business connections, we better not trust you with those of the nation.

Moreover, it should be noted Avantor is questionable even in the U.S. The company is headquartered in Kensington, Penn., which has been called the largest open-air heroin market on the East Coast. Circumstantial evidence, at best, you say? Well, such a component as acetic anhydride is essential to heroin. You can't have heroin without having a component like acetic anhydride. Yes, having the largest heroin market on the East Coast in the same town where acetic anhydride is marketed should be a concern.  (Story polished early morning 3/21/21, shortly after it was written.)

Keep the Immigration Case Decisions to Taking no More than 72 Hours

    Three-day immigration approval. Why not? Or, to put it like so many put it, Change my mind. Tell me, if you can, why we cannot greet them at the border and rule within three days on whether they should be granted legal residence?

   Change my mind. CMM. Bring it -- bring it on -- if you have reason for saying it needs to take more than three days. 

   Here's the way I see it: You can do a lot of research in 48 hours. You can call their references, even their neighbors. You can call their local police station. You can call ahead to their family and friends already in the U.S. Now, once you have contacted the pertinent contact people of theirs, why would you file it all away and schedule them a date to come see you for an immigration hearing in six months? There's no reason for that. 

   Why we make government so complicated, I don't know. 

   Change my mind. Go ahead, tell me why we can't take the applicant at the border and have a judge bringing down his or her gavel within 72 hours, saying, "You are hereby an authorized resident of the United States."

Don't Chase the Children Away, not Even for the Moment

    The U.S. is on pace to encounter more people showing up at the border than it has at anytime in 20 years. It is an emergency. It is a humanitarian crisis. -- And we should welcome the challenge. 

    Rather than telling the immigrants not to come, rather than telling them, Wait. Trump left us with a broken system and we are not yet ready for you, Tell them to come. Tell them you will do everything in your power to accommodate them. 

    If you need to get licensing in place to take care of children, get it. If you can't, get Congress to approve emergency powers allowing you to place the children in good, clean, comfortable care -- even if 40,000 of them descend upon you all at once. If you need to get special allotments of the Covid vaccine approved for them, go to Congress and get that approval. You have the power.  

   Welcome this challenge to help them; Don't run from it. 

J&J Should Go to Outlier Communities

    The Johnson & Johnson vaccine perhaps should be targeted mostly to the rural areas. In Utah, many of those living in the outlier communities are reporting having to drive hours to get the vaccines. That, surely, is because of the extremely cold temperatures the Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations have to be kept at, and such refrigeration is not always as available in the smaller communities. Perhaps, bringing in such refrigeration for smaller communities isn't considered cost-efficient, since you don't have as many people to serve.

    But, the J&J vaccine can be stored at 36-46 degrees Fahrenheit. Roll it out to the rural communities, then. Whatever is now left of it, quit distributing it in the urban areas, and save it for, and distribute it to, just the rural communities. 

At Least it was Good to Kill This One Pepe Le Pew.

   Tonight, we shall discuss the adventures of Pepe Le Pew, one of the latest cartoon characters to run afoul of cancel culture. They had this Pepe Le Pew set for a part in Space Jam 2, you know, and when it came out in July, he would have been starring right alongside LeBron James. 

   Then, someone accused Pepe of encouraging the rape culture. He was too aggressive with women. Nobody seemed to mention this, but here we have Andrew Cuomo being too aggressive, and so we need to remove him from office, and now Pepe Le Pew is following along with the same kind of behavior, so what are we going to do with him?

  No, they didn't give it that angle. Instead, the attitude from the conservative right was, Instead of getting all riled up about some cartoon character, why don't you focus on things that matter, like child pornography, pedophilia, and sex trafficking? 

   I watched what I could of Pepe's videos. I was starting to conclude he should not be canceled. Yes, he was aggressive, but I was not finding anything that I felt was justifying rape, and thus rape culture. Have a little tolerance. Allow a little freedom of speech.

   Then, I ran into this post, Charles M. Blow, The New York Times writer who is so opposed to Pepe, tweeting: "I said Pepe Le Pew added to rape culture. Let's see. 1. He grabs/kisses a girl/stranger, repeatedly, w/o consent and against her will. 2. She struggles mightily to get away from him, but he won't release her. 3. He locks a door to prevent her from escaping." Blow then noted that gives young boys the impression that non-consensual behavior towards women is simply "part of the game."

   I could not find that video elsewhere. I think it has already been scrubbed from YouTube as being too offensive. The Pepe Le Pew controversy is not new, but was upon us from a few years back. It is just being renewed now that Space Jam 2 canceled him. So, that some of the videos have already been "canceled" makes sense. 

   I do not know, do not say, that the remaining videos should be dashed. I wonder. But, I certainly think it good that the one Blow writes about has been "canceled." What we teach our children is important. The mores of society are important. What is portrayed in the movies and on TV does affect children and adults, alike. The meme that suggests those who are concerned about a cartoon character would be better shifting their attention to doing something about child porn, pedophilia and sex trafficking not only falsely accuse the anti-Le Pew crowd of not making those things a priority, it overlooks the fact that fighting rape is just as vital as fighting those other things. 

Fix the System

    Consider their freedom our opportunity. We should be thankful for the opportunity -- even if it is a challenge -- to take in the freedom-seekers arriving at our borders. 

   From a BBC story, we read, "As of 8 March, the number of children held in US immigration facilities had tripled in just two weeks -- to 3,250. Of that number, nearly half had been in detention longer than the three-day limit and were in CBP-managed facilities that were designed for adults."

  The administration seeks to process them in in 72 hours as part of what Republicans call "catch-and-release." Once they are processed, they are released on their honor to report back for their scheduled hearings.

   There, then, is the first place we should fix the system. Instead of just processing them in, rule on their asylum claim right during that 72-hour period. Adjudicate them, then and there. You have 72 hours. Run their background checks, call their sources and when it is reasonable to allow them to stay, let them stay.

   The second thing that needs changed, is that to my understanding, some unaccompanied minors (most?) are being placed in homes with non-relatives. We should change that. We should seek out family members -- parents when possible -- and bring them to accompany the children. Many parents are sending their children north to enjoy freedom and prosperity not available to themselves. They cannot have it for themselves, but they want their children to have it. 

   So, go back and get the parents and tell them, they, too, are welcome. We are a nation that respects the right to flee from oppression, and to seek freedom and the American dream. Let not just the children come, but their parents as well. Keep the families intact. 

Accept Them

  If you've children at your border needing help, help them. If there's 2,000, yes, you find places to house them and take care of them. If you've 10,000, yes, you can also take care of that high a number.

   Biden's press secretary, Jen Psaki, speaks of how they all will not be allowed to stay permanently, but while they are being adjudicated, we should take care of them. I would agree that we should take care of them during the process, but I suggest not turning them back at all, if we can. If there exists no criminal attachments to their pasts (in the teenagers), let them in. 

    Now, what if they are coming as unaccompanied minors because coming unaccompanied makes us more inclined to accept them? By accepting them, aren't we encouraging them to be separated from their families? Then, search the family for someone who will be with them. Many are fleeing to such family members already here. Ensure that that reunion takes place. Others might be fleeing situations and their parents staying behind because the parents know they themselves cannot escape, but they want their children to have the freedoms they cannot enjoy. Go back and get the parents. Make a way for them, also. We believe in families and we believe in people fleeing oppression. Why would we not want them? 

The For the People Act cannot be so Wicked as What Mike Lee Suggests

   The Democrats, with halos around their heads, march forth to make elections fair and equitable and available to all. And, the Republicans size up what they are wanting to do and say its the wickedest law that could possibly be proposed. 

   "I disagree with every single word in HR1, including the words 'but' and 'the,' said Utah Senator Mike Lee. "Everything about this bill is rotten to the core. It was written and held by the devil himself."

   Reading that quote from Lee, one quickly wonders about his level-headedness. Democrats simply set out to write a law making it easier for everyone to vote. Could they really have strayed so far from that goal -- that they suggest every word in the legislation may as well have been penned by the devil, himself?

   Forever, gerrymandering voting districts has been a problem. It is clearly corrupt -- at least clear to me and others. This new law seeks to finally clean that up. And, you are telling us this law was written by the devil, himself, and every word in it is of the devil? No more allowing politicians to draw maps to favor their own political party is somehow evil? Wires are crossed, there.

   The law makes it illegal to prevent or interfere with someone registering to vote. That certainly sounds like a virtuous endeavor. How do we claim the devil is behind that?

   I will wonder about some provisions in the bill. It says the voter shall only be required to provide the last four digits of the social, as opposed to the whole thing. I don't know what is wrong with having them provide their full social.

   Other elements, though, seem clearly virtuous. Right now, the addresses of voters are available to all, right there as part of the public record. Did we ever consider that domestic violence victims, and people who are being stalked, can be traced down by their assailants by simply accessing their voting records? The For the People Act would protect their privacy. Is that not wonderful? Is that not even essential? And, this law is being called the work of the devil, every word penned by Satan, himself?

   Yes, I will wonder about Sen. Lee. What would prompt him to make such a statement? How is it that some things which are clearly good, he cannot see, and he ends up calling them evil?

 

Investigate the Death of Nilda Pedrosa

Nilda Pedrosa, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, died of cancer January 23, just three days following the end of Trump's presidency. There seems no reason to believe foul play was involved. Nor, have I seen any suggested.

But, yes, her death should be investigated. We live in a day when international intrigue and espionage is real. We read in 2018 of the poisoning of double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter. And, news currently follows the case of Alexei Navalny, the Russian dissident many wonder if poisoned by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In the day and age in which we live, many of the deaths that would otherwise go unscrutinised should be investigated, regardless the fact that no foul play seems to exist. We live in a time when there probably are clandestine murders taking place, and thy aren't being uncovered. Whenever -- err on the side of investigating too many -- someone of importance dies and there might be any possibility of international intrigue, investigate. 

Pedrosa was a wonderful person. In addition to her duties as under secretary, she was a significant influence for immigration reform, and on the board of Amigos for Kids, fighting child abuse and human trafficking. She was in a position where her works and efforts could possibly have raised the hackles of hell. Though you really expect to find nothing, investigate. In our day and age, such investigations should be routine. 

Investigate the Office of Under Secretary for Public Affairs

    We should wonder, if we are still in the propaganda business, what the U.S. is doing today. It is 50 years this past month since Roger Mudd's and CBS's The Selling of the Pentagon outlined the propaganda the U.S. military machine is involved in. Fifty years. Surely, it has evolved. Perhaps no documentary has been done since then. Perhaps no investigation has even followed. What became of things? How about an update on what is going on.

   The United States Office of Information was dissolved in 1999. Did it have anything to do with this, to begin with? Was dissolving it a way to reduce the tracing of how tax dollars are spent for propaganda? The functions of the office were handed over to the newly created Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, as part of the U.S. Department of State. Do we look there, as part of our trying to determine what has become?

   Of an interesting (and sad) side note, Nilda Pedrosa, the last under secretary under Trump, died January 23 (so, just three days following the end of Trump's presidency) of cancer. Separate from her duties as under secretary, she was a significant influence for immigration reform, and on the board of Amigos for Kids, fighting child abuse and neglect. That is off the subject, but that she was so influential in such matters makes the lose of her a matter for me to mourn, even the more. 

   Still one wonders at an investigation of America's current involvement in propaganda. Could we audit the spending of the Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs office? Could we interview the six under secretaries who held the office under Trump?

   If Hollywood received grants to make movies in the Forties, filling them with propaganda, what of today? Where would government be funneling the money today? Who would be getting these grants, this dark money? What would be the best way of disseminating propaganda today, and is the government siphoning money their way?

   Yes, I want to know. 

News of Dr. Seuss and Roger Mudd have Us Considering Military Propaganda

 The fall of Dr. Seuss brought news -- for those who searched the history of Dr. Seuss -- that he was once a government propagandist. Yes, he even won Academy Awards for that, if you can imagine.

   A week later (after the news breaks about Dr. Seuss purportedly being racist and such), Roger Mudd dies, and we are reminded of his documentary -- broadcast 50 years ago this past month -- The Selling of the Pentagon, revealing how the military's information arm had a bigger budget than they three major news networks combined -- and spent it on propaganda. Full credit being given, a U.S. Senator back then, William J. Fulbright, unveiled that before Mudd and CBS.

   Turn to Wikipedia, find, "List of Allied propaganda films of World War II," notice the hundreds of movie that were produced, some by the military, itself, and some with grants to Hollywood. The propaganda films Dr. Seuss worked on were but a drop in the bucket compared to all those released. So long is the list that you wonder if every film company in Hollywood wasn't making one, which would make sense. If the military provided financing, and you could support the war effort in the process, why not take the easy money? Frank Capra, the famous director, voluntarily joined the military like Seuss and, like Seuss, helped produce the military propaganda.

  CBS's The Selling of the Pentagon speaks of Thunderbird airplanes flying overhead communities as elaborate commercials  for air power. It tells of war games being presented before the public to help instill devotion to the military. It speaks of how Vietnam would never have happened but for the information blitz that made it possible. It casually drops the name of George Romney, who initially supported the Vietnam War before coming to believe he was "brainwashed" by the military complex.  It tells of James Cagney and John Wayne and lending their help to become pitchmen and narrators of the military films. It speaks of the military rolling out support in filming Wayne's movie, "The Green Berets."

   Where did it start? Was Capra somewhat at the forefront of the military propaganda machine, at least the Hollywood portion?

   More important, what is happening today? 

You Want to Come to America? You Better Get a Lawyer

    Somewhere in the labyrinth of laws we created, coming to America became a complicated maneuver, only to be navigated with the help of a lawyer. You need a coyote to guide you across the border? Well, you need the legal equivalent to guide you through the laws once you get here.  You want to come to America? You better get a lawyer. 

  Such a plight for the poor of nations. 

We Should not Lure Them into the Paths of Death

    Under President Bill Clinton, we began funneling migrants into the more dangerous parts of the desert, The thought was, if we make it so dangerous for them that they die, they'll quit coming. I am amazed that we would do this, that we would purposefully send people to their deaths. This strategy never has been turned around. We are in need of changing our ways. We should not seek their deaths, and we should not lure them into the paths of death. 

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/12/us/no-olvidado-missing-migrants-border/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT6-M_jIul0

This is the Moment We Should Make Our Immigration System Work

    With some saying we are on the verge of the greatest influx of migrants in twenty years, now is the moment to ensure we will be able to handle them and care for them when they arrive.

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, better known as AOC, has criticized the president for opening a facility for children who arrive. "This is not okay, never has been okay, never will be okay -- no matter the administration or party," she tweeted.

   AOC is wrong. Though the facility for children should not be for-profit, though it should get all the licensing and child care requirements necessary, and though it should not imprison the children, we should offer such a place of welcome and care for the children when they arrive. Having clean, comfortable housing available for children is something we should want to do, staffed with loving, caring workers. 

   We read how the Biden administration wants to process the migrants in in a 72-hour span. No longer will there be the long-term holding centers instituted under the Obama years. We will be back to releasing the immigrants and relying on them to show up for their court dates. 

  As they arrive, we should ensure that we provide them clean and decent housing for their 72-hour stays, complete with medical screening (including for COVID-19, of course). During that 72 hours, we should do as much criminal background checking on them as possible, to determine if they are fleeing criminal charges or criminal backgrounds in their home countries. But, at the same time, we should be ensuring that if they are fleeing from persecution, from domestic violence, from criminal elements, from corrupt governments, or any other such thing, they are safe in our care and not being tracked down by those who would endanger them. When their asylum claims can be processed within that 72-hour span and they declared legal to be here, that should happen.  And, yes, we should make that possible -- even likely. That 72-hour window should largely be enough time to completely process them in. Have background-checkers make calls to verify their stories, and then present to the judge what was found out, and make a ruling.  

   This is a moment we should be reshaping our immigration, making it work. These are things that would be right to do. 

   

Are We Really to Believe Russell Ramsland?

   Absolute Truth, is the name of the video. Listen as Russell Ramsland explains how they discovered the Chinese stole the election from Donald Trump. Hmm, you are going to say partway through -- and you'll whistle in disbelief at how Ramsland reached his conclusion.

  "What we did, is every day, we just took the information on the voter records of the people who voted that day in Dallas -- Dallas posts them online, so you get a big, big long record of this voter -- you don't see how he voted, but you see everything else -- name, where he lives, when he asked for a ballot, where he voted, residence address, on and on and on . . ."

   Ramsland's doing fine to this point. Yes, you can perhaps get the voting records each day.

   Then the wheels come off. ". . . All of those, as you know, are comprised of zeros and ones. That's how computers work."  

   Hit the pause button. Someone reach over and tap Ramsland on the shoulder to inform him that "all those zeros and ones" are not part of the voting record available to the public. They are not what you can march down to the county clerk and get each day. Nor can you get them online as you retrieve records of all those who voted each day.

   Ain't happening. Ain't so. . . . and, yes, we might be wondering a little about your sanity at this point, Russell Ramsland. Forgive.

   Just the same, listen to the rest of his explanation of how he knows there was election fraud. 

   ""So, all we did is we would add up all the zeros and ones in that voter record and store it. And then, we would watch what happened to that voter record, as we worked our way through  early voting. Mike, we saw 57,000 votes get their voter records changed during early voting alone in Dallas, Texas. We saw a ten-block long streak in Dallas, Texas, get every single vote wiped out and then subsequently replaced one at a time with clearly something changed because the hash -- in other words, its record of the zeros and ones -- had been changed, and so we know it was tampered with. I mean, it was unbelievable."

   Even if the election machinery were plugged directly into the Internet -- and its not -- how would you analyze it? And, you've said that the info tells you who the voter is, when he or she voted, and where. So, you must be able to read the zeros and ones well enough to read those things. But, you've said you can't tell who he or she voted for. How is it you can read the ones and zeros for their names and where they voted, but you cannot read it for who they voted for? Your story is falling apart. It's not making sense.

  Let those reading this, consider for themselves. When they went in to vote, how was the voting machine set up? Was it set up to the Internet? No.

  But, let's suppose someone could get into the computers this way. Let's suppose they could replace one set of votes with another. What if the Russians and Chinese both could do it -- and maybe the Iranians. What a game that would make! The Chinese would come along and change it one way, then the Russians would change it, and then the Chinese would snatch it right back. And, if you here in the United States have all the original zeros and ones stored in your computer like Ramsland said they did, don't you march right down to election office and give the information to officials there, and demand that they change it right back to the way it is suppose to be?

  Or, maybe you change it back yourself. You say, "Hey, hey, hey. Wait, wait, wait. I have all the correct info, and we're not going to let Biden steal the election. We're not going to let you fool Chinese do this. We're changing it back."

  What a web we weave when we make something up. And, yes, I easily conclude Ramsland made up what he's saying.  

This was a Low Moment for Dr. Seuss

 The Japanese concentration camps -- we rounded up Japanese Americans and tossed them into these camps because we feared they were loyal to Japan -- stands as one of the most atrocious civil rights violations in American history. Dr. Seuss -- yes, the same Dr. Seuss that has been all the discussion the past few days --helped stoke the fear of the Japanese Americans. This cartoon came out just a week before FDR signed the executive order authorizing placing the Japanese in the concentration camps. The cartoon shows two Japanese war ships on the horizon, ready to invade America, and the Japanese Americans are just waiting for the signal from home to blow America up. Whatever you do or do not like about Seuss's children's books, all that is benign in relation to this and the hate and fear that it helped spread against the Japanese Americans. It is said that Seuss was repentant, and wrote Horton Hears a Who as an apology to the the Japanese people. I don't see that in the Horton Hears a Who story line, but hope it is true. Would like to think he was apologetic. Seuss remains a great American, to me, and I hate to see his being removed from the Read Across America Day.

Better Peace Unlimited, the Peace Advancement League -- Whatever We Might Call It

    I wish we had a national peace society. I mean, we have organizations for this and organizations for that. We have organizations for seemingly everything. But, you know, we don't have a group -- a society -- whose sole, stated purpose is peace -- who run around calling off the dogs, who say, "Johnny, be nice," and, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."

   Yeah, a society like that, one dedicated to peace.

   Yeah, someone who will say nice things about Republicans in one sentence, and then in the very next sentence, say something nice about the Democrats. 

   Everybody believes in peace, but nobody starts a peace organization, nobody joins it, nobody asks for it.

   Let them show up at the protests -- you know, the ones where the liberals are on one side and the conservatives on the other -- and wander into the middle, saying, "Hey, hey! Love you both. Now, break it up!" 

  Call them what you will: The Friends and Making Friends Society, The Kindness to Humankind Kind of People, Those Who Battle Against Battles, The Love Society, the Anti-Hatred Society -- whatever you will. 

   Peace Inc. 

   Well, perhaps it would be well if such an organization did exist. And, I'm going to suggest what the first movie could be they would show. It's an old Dr. Seuss show called Butter Battle Book. Give it a view. If nothing else, its very entertaining, and you can always enjoy good entertainment. 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYQtyMcsf9c

Butter Battle Book - YouTube

Dr. Seuss Eludes Those Who Would So Easily Define Him

    It would be nice to write something definitive about Dr. Seuss, but perhaps he not so easily defined that everything about him is definitive. Interesting things abound with him. He was (said to be) a liberal, but is being championed by conservatives no end this day. Consider: He referred to the isolationists who argued for America First as being in companionship to Nazis, Fascists, and Communists. Don't miss the connection here, for a Trump motto is America First, and Trump is, indeed, an isolationist. Would this man who has had Trumpites rallying to his defense these past few days be anything but a Trumper if he were he alive today? 

   Who knows. 

    Now, the big shocker about Dr. Seuss might be that he was a government propagandist. Yes, beat that, if you can. I didn't just say, "propagandist," I said, "government propagandist." Moreover, you can look at the fact that his documentaries won Academy Awards -- and consider that as a sign they were influential -- and you can listen to the films, themselves, and see the persuasiveness in them, and wonder if he was not somewhat one of the more notable opinion-shapers in modern American political history on such matters.

   How about that for the guy you thought was all Cat in the Hat, and nothing but children's books? You get to know him, and you discover he was a great propagandist, part of America's war machine, and wielder of opinions that trace down to things we belief in so very strongly today.

   You could even argue that he ended up helping to save this planet from further war -- yes, you could. Take two of his little films -- Our Job in Japan and Your Job in Germany. They argued persuasively that those two nations both were steeped in beliefs -- brainwashed in their minds -- that they were destined to rule over the world. The films warned that though the war was over, the peoples of those nations would still need to be deprogrammed (though the word "deprogrammed," was not used.) Was Theodor Geisel (Dr. Seuss) and the American War department right? Did he articulate that idea in his films in a way that helped us understand it and belief it to this day? Did our efforts to deprogram the minds of the Japanese and Germans change those people so that they stopped from a future rush to war? 

   Who is to say.

   Certainly on the sad side of what he propagandized about, was that he helped persuade America that throwing American Japanese in determent camps was the right thing to do. The sentiment that that was right might have faded but let it not go unnoticed that it was Dr. Seuss who helped persuade America at the time that it was right. One of the cruel injustices of American history lies partially at his feet. 

  Whatever you are to say about how influential Dr. Seuss's war films were, consider that his were but a drop in the bucket compared to all those released during World War II. There are lists of movies and films and animations that make you wonder if all Hollywood didn't take up making films and military advertisements for war bonds and such. And, it should be noticed that much of this came with government grants. Hollywood was quick to make movies supporting the war in large part because it was easy money. Government was footing the bill. If you can make a movie and get called a patriot while doing it, and make a dollar, there's a way to go.

   An industry was born. And Geisel became part of it. 

   But, one can only wonder about the secrets Theo Geisel/Dr. Seuss took to his grave, secrets about himself. It is written that he exited World War II haunted by it. Look at the animations he did do while serving in the Army's information department. A series of them had little of what we would call propaganda value. They featured a character called Private Snafu, who was a bumbling soldier, at best. The films lampooned the military perhaps about as often as they praised it. One film even laughed at how the military censored the soldiers letters home. Is pointing out in a film that government was censoring a good thing? Not laudatory of America's war machine, were a lot of the Private Snafu films. Dr. Seuss, were you telling us how you really felt about the war?

   A writer of children's books? Then, one should be surprised to see the naked women strewn through the military cartoons Geisel/Dr. Seuss created. These, too, make us wonder about the enigma, the riddle, known as Dr. Seuss. One major interesting thing about him was that he had an affair, and his wife committed suicide.

   Oh, and you could study his book Horton Hears a Who, and consider on the line it repeats over and over, "People are people, no matter how small." Consider how that line has been taken up by anti-abortionists. It is said, by a biographer, that Horton threatened to sue the anti-abortionists for using that line. But, it is also said that Dr. Seuss never gave his opinion on abortion. "People are people, no matter how small," and the book speaks of them being so small they are smaller than a spec of dust. And, one thinks of how we speak of , "Dust thou were, and dust thou shalt return," and of how the unborn start as one-cell zygotes so small they can't even be seen. Would Dr. Seuss be outraged that we even draw these parallels? Are we wrong to even verbalize them right now? Or, since the likenesses are there, can we be allowed to wonder?

   Interesting things about Seuss? It is said the word "nerd" was coined by him.

 Bless this Dr. Seuss. He was a human. He was a complicated person. He had flaws. He has been hero to Americans, but is now falling from that perch. One must consider, though: If our heroes are allowed no flaws, then we shall have no heroes at all. Here is one voice calling for Dr. Seuss to remain a great American hero.

(Note: Slight changes made in blog 3/4/21)

Faith can become the Haven of Lies, or the Heaven of Truth

   Faith can circumvent truth. You can believe in that which is not. Belief in a falsehood does not make it true. Deep belief can be seeped deep in lies. 

   Delusion begins when devotion sets in. We lose grip on reality when we are drawn too tightly to a person or cause. Love blinds. A parent loves his child and can see his child do no harm. A person loves a political figure and also become blinded by that love. 

   Sometimes, we dismiss the search for truth. Sometimes, we want to believe so much that we turn our eyes away from the facts. Sometimes, we have so much faith in a person, or cause, or religion, that we simply say, "It is not so," to that which is as plain as day.

   Faith can be a phantom. It can become the haven of lies. It can make fools of the wise. It can trip those who otherwise are sure of foot. The traveler of faith sometimes goes down roads that are lost. Faith sometimes swings open more doors to falseness than to truth. Do we conclude, then, that faith is but the door by which delusion comes in?

   It can be, but it can also be better. What, then, is the role of faith? Does it have place? Should it be relied on?  Can it be used to direct us, rather than delude us? Or, is it but the crutch of those who are fools?

  When used correctly, faith is the anchor to the truth. It is the strength to withstand falsehood. It is the power to know when there is no way to know. We should only put faith in that which wins it with virtue. Those people and causes and religions that deserve our faith, should first show us by their works and virtues that we can trust them. Trust is for that which is virtuous. That which is pure will never seek to lead you astray.

  So, in conclusion, there comes with faith a warning. It can lead you astray as quickly as it can guide you aright. If faith is to be an anchor to truth, it must be anchored to virtue.