Congress Should be Appointing Appellate Judges

    I suggest that were we to follow the Constitution, Congress should be appointing appellate federal judges, not the president.

   In Article I, Section 8, it gives Congress power "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court."

   If that is not clear enough, it only gives the president authority to appoint Supreme Court justices, not appellate judges.  In Article II, it says that if elsewhere in the Constitution it provides for someone else to appoint officers, then that should be the case. Elsewhere in the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, as we said, it does specify that Congress should be constituting -- and that would include making the appointments -- the appellate judges. Read this:

   ". . . he shall nominate, and . . . shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges to the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for." 

    And, there remains one more indication in the Constitution, In Section III -- which is about the judicial branch -- it says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts a the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

   It gives Congress -- not the president -- authority to establish inferior Courts. This is in line with what is suggested in the other two places in the Constitution. 

The Constitution Says No, but We do it all the Time

    As I search through the Constitution, searching to see if it gives any indication whether investigative powers belong to the executive, legislative or judicial branch, I come across this, in Article I, Section 9:

    "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

   I've skipped over this in the past, not knowing and not bothering to find out what a bill of attainder is. I google. What is a bill of attainder? I'm shocked at the answer: 

   "A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial."

    Our prisons are packed with people who have never had trials, but instead have been pressed into plea bargains. In recent decades, we have moved more-and-more to plea bargaining -- and thus stepped more-and-more away from having trials.

    Our jails are packed with people not yet convicted, people who have been arrested and required to post bond, but who have not yet been convicted -- and therefore have not had trials.

   So, the Constitution says bills of attainder are wrong. You can't punish someone -- and sending them to jail is certainly punishment -- without a trial.  

   And yet that is our common practice. 

The Constitution Suggests Judicial Branch Should do its Own Work

    One of the beauties of the Constitution is its separation of powers. You have an executive branch, legislative branch and judicial branch. The system starts to breakdown, however, if one branch starts reaching into the other.

   So, let's say the legislative branch decided it wanted to investigate Jan. 6 or Benghazi. Let's say they decided there was a need to appoint a commission to get to the bottom of things. Is this not the legislative branch stepping into the work of the judicial branch. It's the legislative branch saying, Hey, you won't cover all the angles, so we've got to. You won't go after Rudy Giuliani hard enough. Or you won't look into Hillary Clinton like we need you to.

    How many special investigations have we seen come back where no charges were filed? These commissions are looking for crimes, same as the Department of Justice. Let the DOJ do its job. When you start letting the legislative branch do the work the judicial branch was intended to do, you bleed politics into justice. That's not a good idea. Justice cannot be carried out when politicians are attempting to influence the outcome. 

We Already Have a 'Commission' that Should be Investigating

    One wonders if it should even take a bill to call for an investigation of the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. The Senate Friday rejected assembling an independent commission by a 54-35 vote. (It needed 60 votes to pass.)

   The question should be, though, since when does Congress have to call for an investigation in order for there to be one? Don't we have something called the Department of Justice, complete with such investigative agencies as the FBI? Since when do they need permission to do their job? 

Glad the Fan was Tossed Out

  Am sorry to hear there were fans at last night's Utah Jazz game heckling the Grizzlies' Ja Morant and his parents, who were there watching their son have a career night. “I’ll put a nickel in your back and watch you dance, boy,” one of them said.

Security removed the three fans. Hopefully, they will be banned from the arena.

Peace from the Sea

    The sands of time are washed on the beach

The cares, and fears, the faults and years

   Concern for them is washed away

Relax in the sun, and under shade of palm tree

   Let the past be washed away

By peace from the sea

When it Comes to Large or Small Government, Learn from Basketball

    Instead of fighting over whether government should be small or large, whether it should have social programs or not, whether it should turn everything it can over to private businesses or not . . .

   Just use government when it is wise to do so, and don't use it when its not. When the situation calls for government programs, go with them. When private enterprise is the best answer, choose it. 

   To suppose that there will not be sometimes when government programs are best is blindness. It can be like forcing a square into a round hole. Sometimes, it doesn't fit. And, to suppose government is always the solution is also a fallacy.

    There are times I wonder someone isn't influencing us, turning us against one another, seeking divisions. They encourage us to be on one side or the other. They egg the Republicans on, then they push the Democrats. 

   Do you know much about fallacies of logic? One is called the False Dilemma Fallacy, or False Dichotomy. One definition I read online says it is, "a manipulative tool designed to polarize the audience, heroicizing one side and demonizing the other. It's common in political discourse as a way of strong-arming the public into supporting controversial legislation or policies."

   Another online definition notes it bases its logic on the false premise that there are only two choices to select from, no middle ground. 

    Knowing it is a false form of logic, let us be practical. There will be times when large government is best, and there will be times small government is best. It isn't an either/or matter, everything belonging in one basket or the other. 

    When a basketball player drives in for a layup, he doesn't always lay it up on the right side, and he doesn't always lay it up on the left, he picks the side he feels give him the best chance of making the basket.  

   We should do the same. 

Would not CRT Endorse this Part of Utah's Resolution?

    Laud the Utah Legislature for the three provisions it did place in its resolution on Critical Race Theory.   ". . . the following concepts are not (to be) included in the curriculum standards, says the resolution. Listing the three things that are not to be taught, it says:

  "that one race is inherently superior to another race;

   "that an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual's race, or

   "that an individual's moral character is determined by the individual's race."

   Now, I would be surprised to learn that any of those three things are taught in diversity-training sessions. Nor do I believe the makers of  Critical Race Theory advocate them. I think it more likely that the diversity training sessions and Critical Race Theory theorists would teach that those three things are, indeed, wrong. It seems to me this is the very message they are trying to convey. If so, Critical Race Theory theorists are fighting for the same things, not against them. So, I would be surprised if the Critical Race Theory theorists would not endorse this language in the Utah resolution.

Praeger University's "What is Critical Race Theory?" is Full of Unfair Attacks

    One of the illogical fallacies is to create for another person what they believe -- make up a lie about their beliefs -- and then to attack that belief. The person under attack is left saying, "I never said that. I don't even believe that. Why do you say I said that?"

   Praeger University has a new video out, and I wonder if it isn't chalk-full of such attacks. Titled, "What is Critical Race Theory?" it says CRT teachings are, "coming to a high school, college, or workplace diversity training session near you."

   It says CRT holds that the most important thing about you is your race, it is the color of you skin, not your values, not your character, not your behavior. I sit here wondering how many diversity training sessions teach that. I doubt that is taught in BYU's instructional courses. I wonder if it taught at any college, high school and workplace.

   The Praeger University video says CRT makes the assumption that racism exists in all interactions. I don't know that that is true. I would imagine there are some who believe every interaction between a Black and a White person is racist, but I doubt that principle is being taught in diversity training sessions in colleges, high school, and worksites.

   The video asks what would happen if two people, one Black and the other White, entered a store at the same time. Who would you help first? If you help the Black person, CRT holds that it will be because you don't trust that person to be left alone. But, if you help the White person, CRT teaches that it will be because you think the Black person is a second-class citizen. I wonder if that is actually being taught in any of the diversity training sessions in our high schools, colleges, or workplaces.

   The video takes the Martin Luther King quote, "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." To Critical Race Theorists, says the video, Martin Luther King was both wrong a naive. I would not be surprised if some diversity training sessions do quote Martin Luther King -- for it is a good and worthy quote -- but I doubt any suggest he was wrong and naive. 

   So, what to make of the Praeger University video? It tells falsehoods. In biblical terms, it bears false witness. Inventing a belief for another person and then attacking them for it is like making a straw house and then knocking it down. It's like fashioning a figure of a person out of straw, and then tearing the straw person apart. That's not the real person. Thus, this form of illogical thinking is called "the Strawman" when illogical fallacies are listed.

https://www.prageru.com/video/what-is-critical-race-theory/?fbclid=IwAR3gBKV-nmUErpGfs92Nh44DYtXrDR4mj7fb1ZkJ62Fm5uBd63gptZOt4WI

 Faith accepts what is, as much as it sues for change.

It isn't the gun that determines your freedom, its who you march behind as you carry it. 

Don't Just Shovel Information from 1619 Project into Our History Books

    Perhaps at much as looking at Critical Race Theory, itself, to determine if it should be taught in schools, we should consider what is in a report, called The 1619 project, published a few years back by The New York Times Magazine. The first paragraph seems part worthy, part unworthy:

   "In August of 1619, a ship appeared on this horizon, near Point Comfort, a coastal port in the British colony of Virginia. It carried more than 20 enslaved Africans, who were sold to the colonists."

   Yes, if this is true -- and I imagine it is -- let's include it in our history books. 

   "No aspect of the country that would be formed here," it says in the first paragraph of the report, "has been untouched by the 250 years of slavery that followed. On the 400th anniversary of this fateful moment, it is finally time to tell our story truthfully."

   No aspect of our history has been untouched by slavery? Much of our nation's history does intertwine with slavery. But, saying no aspect is a gross overstatement. 

   Now, read the second paragraph:

    "It is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country’s history. Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation’s birth. What if, however, we were to tell you that this fact, which is taught in our schools and unanimously celebrated every Fourth of July, is wrong, and that the country’s true birth date, the moment that its defining contradictions first came into the world, was in late August of 1619? Though the exact date has been lost to history (it has come to be observed on Aug. 20), that was when a ship arrived at Point Comfort in the British colony of Virginia, bearing a cargo of 20 to 30 enslaved Africans. Their arrival inaugurated a barbaric system of chattel slavery that would last for the next 250 years. This is sometimes referred to as the country’s original sin, but it is more than that: It is the country’s very origin."

   Requiring us to take the date of slaves arriving as the date the nation was founded is more than a stretch, and is wrong. Let's not reset the date of the founding of America to Aug. 20, 1619. There is nothing wrong with celebrating the date on July 4, and citing 1776 as the year this country was founded. That date is much more accurate than Aug. 20, 1619 -- regardless how wrong it was to introduce slaves to America.

   I do not know the history of those times well (regarding blacks being introduced). Most of us don't. But, I wonder if one thing that gets left out of the telling is whether they were agreeable to coming. What little study I did do indicates their slavery was, indeed, forced upon them. The source I read says millions of West Africans were "kidnapped." If they were, indeed, kidnapped, then it was wrong. But, I do wonder if some were agreeable to coming. Don't castigate me for asking the question. If I the suggestion is wrong, it is wrong. I just don't think we should assume they were all forced. I think we should ask the question and find the answer.

   Those slaves introduced to America in 1619 came as indentured servants. This means they were laborers under contract (was the contract of their own will, or forced upon them?) to work for a set number of years. When the contract expired, the laborer was set free. This should be part of the story. 

   Get into The New York Times Magazine's report a little deeper. It will raise your eyebrows:

   ". . . black Americans, simply by existing served as a reminder of this nation's failings. White America dealt with this inconvenience by constructing a savagely enforced system of racial apartheid that excluded black people from mainstream American life -- a system so grotesque that Nazi Germany would later take inspiration from it for its own racist policies." 

    Did Nazi Germany pattern its racist policies against Jews on what it found in early America? This is a huge accusation. Where is the evidence? Where is the documentation? Did Hitler say as much in his writings? How do we know this is true?

   And, White Americans -- certainly not all of them -- probably did not consider it an "inconvenience" to be reminded of slavery. Those who did believe in slavery probably saw no inconvenience, at all. They probably supposed all they were doing was right. I'm not saying that it was right -- it wasn't -- but don't make them confessers of their guilt when they likely didn't feel that way. 

   Nor should it go overlooked that many treated their slaves well. Having slaves, at all, might well be wrong, but part of the story that should not go untold is that some slaves might not have minded being slaves. If that is true, it should be part of the story. I think of George Washington, and how he treated the slaves he inherited. I do not know that he was perfect in their treatment. He, perhaps, treated them wrong at times. But, for the most part, I understand he treated them well. That should be part of the tale. If you are going to give history, don't leave part of it out. 

   The 1619 Project does tell how Thomas Jefferson, in his first draft of the Declaration of Independence, acknowledged that slavery was wrong, and ascribed it to the king of England. That belongs in our history books -- as does the consideration of whether he was right. If the first slaves arrived in 1619, did the king of England have them sent here? 

    The 1619 Project should be critically reviewed. We should not just shovel these things into our history books just because The 1619 Project says we should. 

  

Study, Then, and Learn What Critical Race Theory Means to Them

Study then, and learn that banning Critical Race Theory really means they want to ban anything that teaches that there is discrimination. Or, so it seems to me. Judge for yourself. I went to the website titled Criticalrace.org, which hails itself as a resource center listing ways colleges and universities are involving themselves in this dangerous thing called "Critical Race Training." What kind of activities are offending them? What kind of activities would they ban? I will quote from their website what they think are offending activities. And, you tell me if it does not seem they want to ban any activity that teaches Blacks are discriminated against. To them, that is a false premise, and its teaching should be banned from our schools. Go to Criticalrace.org to read a full listing of the offending activities at more than 200 of our colleges and universities.

Utah State University in Logan, Utah: "The Office of Equity requires all faculty, staff, and student employees to undergo bias training." Barnard College of Columbia University in New York: "Barnard provides students extensive opportunities in extracurricular social justice education, including the Social Justice Resource Room, the Social Justice residential hall, Equity in Action workshops, and others." American University in Washington, D.C.: "The School of Education has launched a new 'Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Antiracism' as well as a new, ad-hoc committee." Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas: "The university pledged to 'develop a policy on social media usage for students that balances our institutional values and free speech.' " Abilene Christian College in Abilene, Texas: "Faculty and staff will undergo diversity awareness training." Those are offending activities? We would ban schools from teaching kids not to be biased, and to accept people of diverse backgrounds?

Do These Legislators Even Know What They are Doing?

    If ever there were an example of law makers passing bills without knowing what they were talking about and what they were doing, perhaps this is it. 

    Take a resolution arising from national discussion about Critical Race Theory. "I have no idea what it is," admitted Utah State Sen. Lincoln Fillmore (R-South Jordan). "I looked up two dozen definitions, and they were all different."

   And, he was the one sponsoring the legislation.

   Then, there was the issue of Utah becoming a Second Amendment sanctuary state -- a state refusing to comply with national laws on guns. Senate Majority Leader Evan Vickers (R-Cedar City), who sponsored a declaration, explained there has been some "saber-rattling" in Washington, D.C., "about someone coming in and taking away guns or restricting the use of guns on the federal level."

   But when Vickers was asked which policies he was referring to, he failed to be able to name them. "Right now, admittedly, there are none," is the best he was able to do to field the question."

    There's an old expression, of people shooting wildly into the night, of not knowing what they might hit or who they might harm -- just firing a broadly and blindly into the night, as if to say, "Who knows what's out there, but it's dead now."

    Isn't that what Utah's legislators are doing? 

 (Note: Information and direct quotes used to write this blog were taken from Salt Lake Tribune articles of May 20, 2021.)

   

     

Learn What Activities Would be Considered Illegal by Banning CRT

   Should we ban Critical Race Theory from being taught? One would think that to answer that, you need a good definition of what Critical Race Theory is. Not so. What you need is an understanding of what those who are calling for the ban see as Critical Race Training.

   Go to a website titled, Criticalrace.org. It advertises itself as, "A free resource for parents and students concerned about the negative impact Critical Race Training has on education. Search our database of over 200 colleges and universities to learn more about Critical Race Training on campuses nationwide."
  
   So, what type of activity does is cite? What thing could end up being banned? Thumb through what it lists as some of the examples of Critical Race Training:

   At Linfield University, "For Black History Month, 2021, Linfield hosted a webinar with DelRay McKesson on ending police violence." 

   At the University of Kentucky, "Administration will be revising its free-speech policies."

   At Boise State University, "BSU offers a Language, Race, and Ethnicity Speakers Series."

   At the University of Idaho, "President's letter on the death of George Floyd."

   At Brigham Young University, "BYU's committee aims to 'understand both the subtle and overt ways that racism may impact individual thought and interactions, organizational units, processes, policies, practices, procedures, and operations."

   At the University of Central Florida, "UCF Libraries provided a guide titled, 'Diversity & Education: Ethnicity & Racial Resources.' " 

Ban Teaching These? Gags on Speech not What Freedom is Made of

   You're thinking it would be a bad idea to add Critical Race Theory to Utah's curriculum? You're thinking we should ban it? Perhaps you should also consider which events should be banned from being discussed in the classroom.

   Do we say teaching about the Trail of Tears is taboo? Sixty Thousand Native Americans, including thousands of their Black slaves) were forcibly removed from their ancestral homelands in the southeastern United States to lands west of the Mississippi. They suffered disease, exposure, and starvation. Thousands died. Do we ban that, and say it cannot be taught?

   Do we continue to throw a cover over the fact the man who carved Mount Rushmore was associated with the KKK? Gutzon Borglum, before he came to work on Mount Rushmore, worked with the KKK on a similar project in Georgia, aiming at creating a monument to Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis, the three heroes of the Confederacy. He had a falling out with others involved in the project, so he picked up his toys, so to speak, erased his work, and transferred his ambitions to Mount Rushmore. Perhaps that doesn't belong in a history book. Should we continue to cover it up?  There's a secret chamber at Mount Rushmore, one not open to the public. It reportedly contains Borglum papers further tying him to the KKK. Why do we keep these things away from the public? 

   Speaking of Mount Rushmore, do we let it be known the federal government signed a contract with Native Americans in 1868, granting them exclusive use of a large region of land, including the Black Hills where Mount Rushmore was carved? But, when gold was discovered on the property, the U.S. went back on its word, and yanked the land back. Do we say we should continue to keep this part of history under wraps? Telling of it will just stir up people to anger? 

   The hundredth anniversary of the Tulsa Race Massacre is coming up, It was May 31--June 1, 1921, that a white mob set fire to the Greenwood District and airplanes with White attackers reportedly flew overhead, firing rifles and dropping firebombs on the Blacks. One estimate suggests a death count of as many as 100-300, though most counts are much lower. A documentary titled Tulsa Burning: The 1921 Race Massacre will premier in less than two weeks, Sunday, May 30, executively produced by NBA superstar Russell Westbrook, he who is in ill-esteem with many who are of Republican leanings these days. Do we throw a few more epithets Westbrook's way and say the Tulsa Race Massacre is just a part of history we ought to cancel?

   We've all heard of Jim Crow laws. But, did you know that part of that was sending Black people to prison on minor charges and then using them as prison laborers? Slavery under another name is still slavery. The Confederates were defeated, but found other ways to continue practicing their trade. But, that's not really part of history, is it? Certainly not something that should be taught in our schools. And, let's not let it be known some Jim Crow laws continued as late as the 1950s.

   The estimate 4,400 lynchings -- the telling of that is not fit for public consumption? It's just a communist lie?

   Should we down-tone down speaking of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King? The protests of the 1960s were part of history, but let's not over do it?

   Do we discuss the Rodney King beating, and how it turned light on police violence by introducing videos to unveil the police brutality? Or, is police brutality not even a term that should be used?  How much are we allowed to say about the shootings of Michael Brown and George Floyd? Are we allowed to say that some believe the shooting of Brown was unjustified? Can we let it be known that Derek Chauvin, who killed Floyd, once worked at a club where he allegedly would spray mace on the crowds -- quicker when they were primarily Black than when they were primarily White?  

    Just what is fit for public dissemination? I do not know if any or all of these things are covered in classes that teach Critical Race Theory. But, these are things I believe should be in our textbooks. If you don't want them in Critical Race Theory classes, or if they are not even part of the Critical Race Theory, to begin with, then let them be taught in civic, and history, and government classes. But, don't cover them up. Truth is often fit for public consumption. And don't put restrictions on free speech preventing certain things from even being discussed in school. Gag orders on public speech are not what freedom is made of. 

Can't They Trace these Calls?

   When notice arrived in my email questioning a purchase, I thought it was valid. A detective had contacted me weeks earlier, saying he was investigating a fraud connected to my address, so I thought this must be part of that. 

    Mind you, I've seen phishing expeditions in the past, but this one caught me off guard. 

    I immediately called and thanked them for catching it. Did I want them to honor the $1,499 charge? Of course not! The guy started explaining what needed to be done, and the steps we were taking were leading to him having remote access to my computer. I stopped him at the very last step, and told him I was expecting two calls and would have to get off the line. He said he would call back in two hours.

    I called the cops. The officer said he had had a call from the same people. They were just phishing for my personal information. Happens all the time. I told him they would be calling back two hours later, wondering if he would want to listen in. He didn't. Now, that I don't understand. Isn't there such a thing as tracing the calls? 

   So, the point of this little story, is why don't they trace those calls? Can't they? I know there is something I must not be aware of. But, knowing only what I know, I can't understand. 

At the Setting of the Sun

When you get back to heaven

   When you get back to home

Don't suppose you are perfect

   Just because you have grown

They'll greet you, they've seat you

    They'll give you a place

But the time you were mortal 

   Is not gone without trace

All that you are 

   And all you've become

You carry with you

   At the setting of the sun

Salvage These Items that aren't Worn Out

  Baby carriages, lamps, books -- you name it. All end up in the garbage someday. And, some before their time. Some are still in good shape. It's just that the owner bought a new model or no longer had use for the item.

    Why not recycle them? Instead of a garbage truck, why not have a different truck come pick them up. Then, have workers give a quick look at what does end up at the dump, and find some more. Either create a store to sell them at, or give them to Goodwill or Deseret Industries or Catholic Charities or some such, so they can sell them.

I Should Read, Michael Brown Didn't Have to Die

   I almost think to buy the book Michael Brown Didn't Have to Die by Ken Dye. 

   I have a friend who has been encouraging me to tell him what my opinion is on the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, of Michael Brown. I've put him off, thinking I should review the evidence before coming to an opinion. So, today, I thumbed through the DOJ Report. But, this was no easy task, not one to be adequately done just in a couple hours. There were 60 witnesses in the case. It would take a lot of reading to read them all. The DOJ Report is 86 pages long. 

   Some of the witnesses are discounted in the report. What they said was not consistent with the evidence, the report says. Sometimes, it wasn't even consistent with what they themselves had said, their testimony on one occasion not matching with what they said on another occasion, according to the DOJ Report. But, if we discount some witnesses for conflicting statements, shouldn't we treat Darren Wilson the same? Wilson, who shot Brown, gave different timeframes for a statement he said Brown made. 

   I also wonder when I read that Wilson gave his sergeant, known as Witness 147 in the report, a partial account of what had happened. But, says the report, the sergeant never documented what Wilson told him. In a good investigation, wouldn't a written statement from Witness 147 be asked for? Isn't taking written statements from all the witnesses standard procedure? 

    Still as I thumbed through the report, I found myself thinking Wilson was probably not guilty. Then, as I search for the video that went viral, I find instead a video of Michael Brown exchanging what is supposedly a bag of weed for cigarillos at a convenience store. "He left his items at the store, and he went back the next day to pick them up," says a narrator. The next day -- the day of the shooting -- Brown is accused of stealing the cigarillos and he is said to have been walking home from that thievery when Wilson stopped him and shot him. The video of the night before might have another explanation. The stealing of cigarillos might, indeed, be just that, stealing. Still, it makes me wonder. And, I wonder why the DOJ Report doesn't at least discuss the video purporting to be an exchange of weed for the cigarillos.

   My guess at this point would still be that Wilson was justified in the shooting. But, that might change with more study. I won't, but perhaps I should read books like Michael Brown Didn't Have to Die. There might be other books that back up that Wilson was justified. It would be great to be able to read them, to study this. It is important. But, alas, we only have so much time.

  

 You starve the truth when you feed on rumors.

 Humility directs us to our own faults, while pride points to the faults of other. So, know yourself, whether you are proud or humble, by whose faults you choose to be preoccupied with. 

 We reveal who we really are by pretending to be that which we're not.

Wickedness wins when its ways are hidden.

   I have not paid good attention to this in the news: widespread protesting in Iraq. I suppose I thought you just don't protest in Iraq. Perhaps, though, these are not the days of Saddam Hussain. If you count all the protesters who have turned up at the various protests, the count is now in the millions. And, the tide appears to be rising, the protests increasing. They demand the ouster of a government placed upon them by the United States and supported by Iran. 

   Unrepentant and still defiant. Bless Liz Cheney for not backing down even though her fellow Republicans in the House ousted her from House leadership. A hero for our times.

    Merrick Garland, installed just last month as attorney general, is off to a good start, speaking words that needed to be said, saying White supremacy is the "the most dangerous threat to our democracy."

Cox Bows, but Cheney is Defiant

    Earlier this month, delegates to the Utah Republican state convention booed newly-elected governor Spencer Cox. Now, weeks later, Cox has signed on with Republican governors condemning Joe Biden for what is going on at the border.

   "The cause of the border crisis is entirely due to reckless federal policy reversals executed within your first 100 days in office," the governors wrote. Cox was one of 20 governors -- out of 27 Republican governors -- who signed the letter. 

   Is he trying to appease the Republican delegates, trying to win them back?

   Meanwhile, Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney, facing ouster from a Republican Senate leadership post, is not backing down. In a fiery speech Tuesday, she said:

  "Today we face a threat America has never seen before. A former President who provoked a violent attack on this Capitol, in an effort to steal the election, has resumed his aggressive effort to convince Americans that the election was stolen from him."

 

Are We Using Raw Numbers, or Looking at the Proportion of Killings?

    Thinking it proves their point, those who say police do not kill more Blacks than Whites might well pull out a graph showing more Whites are killed, 370 Whites to 235 Blacks in 2019, 457 Whites to 241 Blacks in 2020, and 114 Whites to 62 Blacks in 2012.

   But, those are raw numbers, not taking into account that Blacks only account for 13.4 percent of the population. Proportionally, Whites, since they account for 76.3 percent of the population, are not being killed at near the same rate as Blacks.

   

Time for a Discussion

    You ask many Republicans, and they will tell you all the hysteria about race is dividing the nation. It is not Blacks being killed by Whites, nor by police, but rather the false notion that Blacks are being unproportionally killed. That falsehood is stirring up flames, creating unwarranted anger, and dividing the nation.

   So they say.

   A quiet reply is needed. Those conservatives should be shown the facts. Truth should be laid before them -- for them to accept or reject. While they might not accept the truth, it remains the thing to do to present it to them. Some of them are not beyond accepting reason.

   Which brings us to the question: Is the supposition that the conservatives are wrong, wrong itself? What if they are right? They will bring their statistics and arguments. Still, this is a study that is needed. Consider what they say, and ask that they consider the facts showing there are disparities in how Blacks are treated.  
  

Perhaps Critical Race Theory Should be Part of a Larger Class Course

   Tennessee bans the teaching of critical race theory. Idaho governor signs bill banning the teaching of critical race theory. Oklahoma enacts law preventing the teaching of critical race theory. So stack up the headlines in just the past two days.

   All of which makes us wonder what critical race theory is. It is the study of how laws intersect with racial issues.

   Perhaps, rather than being banned -- which might threaten free speech as some laws are crafted so discussion of race might be entirely erased from taking place at schools -- the topic should be expanded and called Race Relations in the United States. 

Copeland's Conduct was but Reflective of Many on the Right

     Utah's Landon Kenneth Copeland's conduct was but a reflection of that of many on the Right as he yelled at the judge and called her "evil" at a court hearing Thursday. Copeland is facing trial for his part in the riot at the Capitol Jan. 6. Swear words and suggesting their opponents are following Satan are the calling card of some conservatives.

   Copeland's protest at the Capitol was followed four months to the day by another protest -- this time in the courtroom. Others Copeland invited to his Zoom hearing also contributed to the protest. When we started seeing court hearings go on Zoom due to the coronavirus, we should have seen this coming. The defendants are out of reach of constables, who cannot just haul them out of the courtroom.

   Copeland's outburst brought the judge to order a mental evaluation. It makes one wonder about some of those on the Right. If they daily conduct themselves like Copeland did, should they then be candidates for mental evaluations?

Who Knows but what Iraq has More Righteous People than Us

    My friend holds out his cell phone so I can see and meet his friend, who is a professor at a university in Iraq. He seems a wonderful person. Some people, you look in their eyes, and become impressed with what great people they are. Latter-Day Saints sometimes consider that they can tell some are LDS just by the genteel look on their face. Well, I saw that same type of look in his face

    In America, we speak of American Exceptionalism. We speak as if we were better than other nations. I do not say this land is not favored by God -- I believe it is. But, I also believe there are good people among all nations -- and I mean very good people.

   So I ask, are we a nation full of pride? Are we withering in our pride? Do we think we are better than others -- especially better than those in Muslim nations? Would some of us, even, be upset with me for suggesting the people of Iraq -- full of Muslims -- might be every bit as righteous as we are. 

   Maybe more so. Who knows.

Is This Part of Why Many don't Like Russell Westbrook?

     Russell Westbrook is one of the most-hated players in the NBA, and one can only wonder if the fact he once pulled the race card doesn't contribute to that. 

    It was two years ago, against the Utah Jazz, no less. Westbrook says a fan yelled racial slurs at him. Westbrook hardly responded in a proper and gentlemanly manner. "I'll (f-word) you up. You and your wife, I'll (f-word) you up," he yelled back at the fan. 

   But, his response isn't what people remember the most, it's that he pulled the race card. It's that he accused the fan of a racial slur. Now, there are a few other players in the NBA that don't sit well with all the fans, LeBron among them.

   I remember the day when many fans watched the Oklahoma City Thunder just to see Westbrook. They were amazed at all his triple-doubles. Now days, though, when someone reminds them of his numbers, they simply dismiss him as someone who pads his stats. 

   The treatment of Westbrook is reflective of many people's views of anyone who "pulls the race card." If you suggest the police didn't treat you right on account of your race, they will get upset with you. They will be indignant. They will tell you that it is people like you who are tearing this nation apart with racism, making an issue where there doesn't need to be one.

   They say Westbrook is inefficient, forcing up shots. But, he shoots 44 percent. With the load he takes on -- bringing the ball down and hustling for the rebounds -- one would expect the fatigue might drop his shooting percentage. But 44 percent is hardly bad. Donovan Mitchell shoots 44 percent and no one complains about him (thankfully). Why do people hate Russell Westbrook? Truth be known, why?

Bravery can have it's Price; Will Cheney Pay it?

   Commend Liz Cheney of Wyoming for her bravery. Standing up to Trump could get her forced out of office, but despite that, she is about as vocal as any Republican in the nation.

   "The 2020 presidential election was not stolen. Anyone who claims it was is spreading THE BIG LIE, turning their back on the rule of law, and poisoning our democratic system," She tweeted.

   "We can't rebuild the party or the conservative movement on a foundation of lies. We can't embrace the notion the election is stolen," she also said. "It's a poison in the bloodstream of democracy. . . . We can't be a cult of personality."

   In the past, she has said Trump "assembled the mob" and "lit the flame" that resulted in the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol. 

   Winds whip the waters, but the waters never whimper. They rise from the winds, and roar with their waves. They take their lashing and grow from it.  

 If you fear the waves, you will never ride them.

The Term "Logic Fallacies" can Seem Like an Oxymoron

   You might have noticed the term "Logical Fallacies" seems like an oxymoron.  Strictly speaking, "logic" is reasoning conducted according to strict principles of validity. There is no fallacy in logic, by that definition. However, the word "logic" is also used to describe the process of mental thinking, even if if that thinking is not done "according to strict principles of validity". Here's an example: "By your kind of logic, Mars is somewhere out on my front lawn."

   Those who list the most common "Logical Fallacies" quite often include the "False, False Fallacy." In it, you assume that if a person uses a Logical Fallacy, his or her conclusion must be wrong. But, that isn't always the case. Sometimes, you can be right about your conclusion without being right about the process you took to arrive at it. 

   Many of those who teach what the "Logical Fallacies" are have come to recognize that the term is an oxymoron. As a result, such entries on the topic are simply titled "Fallacies" in such places as Britannica and Wikipedia and you will be redirected to that entry if you type in the more-common, "Logical Fallacies."
  

Hydra Chess Introduced to the World

  The highest rated chess player in Utah and the only grandmaster in the state, Kayden Troff, defeated the inventor of Hydra chess Saturday as hydra chess was introduced to the public. The game's inventor, Eric Lehenbauer, drew about 20 fans and players to the inaugural event at Salt Lake Community College in Sandy. 

    Other than two or three grandmasters who have come and left the state -- at least one of which stayed long enough to attend BYU  -- Troff, has been the dominant player in Utah for the past decade. "I really enjoyed playing," Troff said, noting Lehenbauer emailed him in August, asking for his participation as he began planning Saturday's kickoff event. Lehenbauer said he contacted the state's top players one after another, only to be rejected. But when he called Troff, the easy-going chess champion was amenable. Having the only grandmaster in the state anchoring the debut gave the game immediate credence and attention. Troff defeated Lehenbauer at the beginning of the event, then split with one of his better students, Aurelius Mlynar, in his next two serious games. Troff is not overly active as a player at the moment, instead spending much of his time tutoring upcoming chess players, as he has more than 15 learning from him.

   Hydra is a cruel version of chess, with the element of luck intertwined. Players draw cards to see which five pieces they will start with. The board is only five squares by five squares. Each time a piece is moved off the home row, the player draws another card to see which piece will replace it on that back row. This continues until all 16 pieces have been placed in play. 

   Many at the event came wearing T-shirts advertising the new game. "I'm obsessed with Hyrda Chess," said one. As Lehenbauer continues to get more chess boards and pieces manufactured, he will further roll out the game, hosting even larger events.

. "It's fun, because it's unique," Troff said. "I think I'll play more going forward. I think Eric wants to do more of (such events), so hopefully I'll be part of those."