At We Celebrate Freedom, We Should not Turn Our Backs on Britney

   A judge Wednesday ruled against Britney Spears efforts to have a conservatorship controlling her life removed. 

    Britney contends her life has been controlled by the conservatorship, right down to sending her to a treatment center (the story did not say what the treatment center was for, but the conservatorship is in place because of supposed lack of mental compentency to make her own decisions.) She contends she is not even allowed to remove a birth control device.

   Worthy of note: Britney's fight for control of her own life is taking place right as we are celebrating freedom and the Fourth of July. In America, land of the free, is seems incomprehensible that a person who clearly has the mental capacity to make their own decisions is not being allowed to do so. It seems beyond understanding that a person with millions should be ordered by the court to let someone else decide how those millions are spent.

   What is the judge's reasoning? Has the request not been properly filed? It does seem a judge would have power to set a person at liberty. Off top, seems she could just throw out any conservatorship, ruling that in America it is strictly against the Constitution. But, if certain filings are necessary, why doesn't the judge just call Britney and her lawyer up to his bench and explain what is necessary?

   Britney's performances are on the edge. She dresses scantily. Some may be hesitant to come to her defense because they don't want to be seen as defending such a person. Some may not even want to discuss her situation, seeing how her performances have so much sexual content, and even speaking about or studying her situation seems off limits.

   This is America. At a time our nation is celebrating freedom, we should not be turning our backs on the freedom of one of our celebrities. Whatever you perceive as her vice, she should still have her freedom.

News that isn't Making Enough News: Venezuela Immigration

   A record 7,484 Venezuelans were taken in by Border Patrol agents at the Mexico border last month -- more than in all the 14 years since record keeping started, according to The Associated Press.

   What drives them here? The pandemic, inflation, social upheaval, political strife, food shortages, power blackouts, fear of being imprisoned . . .

   And, the fact that they will probably be able to stay once they arrive. Only 26 percent of them have had their applications for asylum denied. And, if when their applications are denied, how do you deport them? In 2019, President Trump cut off ties with the country -- including suspending flights from the U.S. You cannot just buy them a ticket for Caracus and be done with them. No, not having open transportation lines makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to deport them to Venezuela. 

   Here is a telling fact: Of the 17,306 Venezuelans who have crossed the southern border without authorization since January, many came from where they had relocated in other South American countries. They had fled to those countries, and now had decided to continue on to the U.S. At least part of that is surely because they heard how easy it is to remain in the U.S. if they do come.  

   Only 26 percent of them are denied? And, how does that compare to other countries? Those from other poor countries are denied at an 80 percent clip, even though they often come from places of extreme violence and crime. 

My Hero for the Day: Venezuela's Salvador Diaz

    My hero of the day: Salvador Diaz Carias, an 88-year old living in communist-ruled Venezuela. News today says that at this old age, he's been granted the title of FIDE chess master.

   I, myself, in my old age (66), have taken up chess, having played in high school but having left it behind till now. I aspire to be as good a player as Diaz, though acknowledging I probably won't reach that level. 

   "I was completely absorbed by chess until the sun of today," Diaz says, speaking of his days as a 20-year old when he took up the game. When he says, "sun of today," I'm sure he means his study stretched through the night and into the wee hours of the next morning.

   That's me. Though I have distractions, I study as much as I can all day, and into the early hours of morning. Last night, I studied till just past 3 a.m. And, when I finally retired, I continued to review chess openings in my mind as I laid there trying to sleep, keeping me yet awake till perhaps 4:00.

   Diaz speaks of being tutored by his good friend, Luis Alberto Matos, a tournament-caliber player who, above all else, was very knowledgeable in openings. In Diaz's very first tournament, he used an opening variation Matos had taught him to defeat the reigning Venezuelan champion, Andres Sadde. I wish I could contact Diaz, to ask him the moves in that variation. 

   As Diaz grew in the game, he had occasion to play against Bobby Fischer, who was then but a rising star. Diaz employed an opening which caused problems for Fischer before Fischer rallied to win. Again, I wish I could ask Diaz what opening he used.

   I, too, am studying openings. I aspire to know them all, not just enough of them to pick two or three to see me through. I want to be able to beat others at their games, at the openings of their choice.

   In 1968, Diaz reached an Elo rating of 2,300, just good enough to be granted the title of FIDE master. Somehow, though, it was overlooked and he was not granted the title. About a year ago, a friend of his and promoter of chess in Venezuela, Nicola Nigro, along with Luisana Mujica, a former Venezuelan women's champion, discovered a chess magazine, the Chess Informant, from 1971, documenting Diaz's 2,300 rating. They took it to FIDE, the Federation Internationale des Echecs, and petitioned for him to be granted FIDE master status. This past week, the status was granted.

   But, it didn't come without the politics of Venezuela almost upending the effort. Venezuela is ruled by President Nicolas Maduro, a communist, and that rule has led to unprecedented inflation. FIDE informed Diaz and his friends that the titled would be granted, but only on the condition Diaz pay the standard 70 euros. With inflation, that amount was far beyond what the Diaz family could afford, so Nigro found a way to come up with the money, himself. 

  Upon receiving the title, Diaz wrote Chess.com, which (in a world now filled with computers) has become the foremost chess website. He informed Chess.com of his honor, sharing his story with them and with, "all the fans who love this beautiful game, which is getting even bigger with the effects of this pandemic that we are experiencing."

   Indeed, chess has blossomed under the pandemic. While other sports were canceled, chess exploded, play simply being transferred online instead of in-person. People stuck in their homes, looking for something to do, found they could play chess online. And, more than that: With computers doing the training, access to training and the level of it is greater than ever in the history of chess. Just as we are escaping the stay-away-from-others restrictions imposed from the fight against COVID, I am returning to chess. Though one of the best high school players in Idaho when I first took up the game, I return to find a game in which I am massively outclassed, the computers having trained a generation of players such as the world has never seen. Whereas I thought I might step right back into the game as one of the best players in the city, I was dearly mistaken, finishing dead last in two of the first four tournaments I entered (and close to last in the other two). 

  I've considered on senior chess players. How good are the best and do I have any chance of becoming one? Today's champions are not seniors. I read through the list of winners in some of the current tournaments. They are but 28-32 years old. That appears the prime age for chess players. Perhaps without fail (at least the ones I took time to look up) they all were chess prodigies, all learning the game as very young children and then studying, and learning, and being tutored until in their teens they emerged as stars.

   I and my computer will see what we can do. Diaz continues to play chess in his old age. As recent as last year, he won at a tournament at the San Cristobal Fair. I take him as my hero this day, hoping to become a senior player good enough to win city tournaments. 

Britney's Song Underscores Her Somewhat Slavehood

    You will unravel it, won't you? How a megastar musician could be kept  as somewhat of a slave in America. You've been reading the news. You figure it out. 

   If this were to happen to any American, we would be appalled. If they were a nobody walking the streets, we would be appalled to think that their right to govern their own life had been stripped away. No, I am not saying the mentally challenged should not be in conservatorships. I'm saying it should be clear Britney Spears is not crazy. She is in control of her senses enough that she shouldn't have slipped into a -- what do we call it? -- conservatorship, a state of affairs where someone is your guardian, making all your decisions.

   You want to have a baby? Can't. We've a device planted in your body that won't allow that. You want to choose your own lawyer? No, let us give you our court-appointed attorney. You want to decide how your money will be spent? No, that is for us to decide. We will spend your millions for you. Oh, and we are going to send you to somewhat of an insane asylum. Your mental condition requires treatment. You will be watched so closely that you will dress and undress in front of your caretakers. 

  Of course, if Britney were going along with this -- if it were what she wanted and she wasn't objecting, then we might not blink an eye. And, perhaps that is exactly what has happened. America hasn't batted an eye because it seemed it was all fine to her. 

  Britney has a song that reveals how she felt enslaved. Yes, one of her hits speaks of it. She knew she was being enslaved, and she had her writers write a song about it. Go to one of her Las Vegas concerts. She opened with it, as if to say, "I come to you today as a slave, a sex slave, brought before you by my caretakers to provide you a sexually exciting show." 

  The opening song, it was, and it was as if to say, "Let me introduce myself. Here's what's going on. Here's why we are all here." Some dancers come out, march around for a while, then, the music stops, and a flume of smoke or vapor envelopes the center platform on the stage. As it, clears, a scantily-clad Britney appears, each hand as if handcuffed to a cross, and she is hanging not naked, but scantily-dressed before her viewers. She twists and squirms as if trying to escape and unable to do so. 

   Then, she releases herself so she can perform.

   "You want a hot body? You want a Bugatti? You want a Maserati? You better work, b--ch! You want a Lamborghini? Sip martinis? Look hot in a bikini? You better work, b--ch! You want to live fancy? Live in a big mansion? Party in France? You better work, b--ch. Now, get to work b--ch!"

   And, with that, she is escorted down the stairs from the platform to perform her show, the words "Now, get to work, b--ch" being the prompt. She wiggles her body and goes to the front of the stage. "Bring it on, ring the alarm. Don't stop now, just be the champion. Work it hard, like it's your profession. Watch out now, 'cause here it comes. Here comes the masher! Here comes the master!" 

   "Here comes the master"? Clearly reference to her caretakers -- the song spelling out what her "conservatorship" is all about.

   Her and the other dancers roll around on the floor. ". . . Break it off, break it down.  See me come, and you can hear my sound. Tell somebody, in your town. Spread the word, spread the word." As if to say, "The big show is coming to town, featuring the scantily-clad Britney. Tell your friends. Tell everyone to come see the spectacle. 

  The dancers are back on their feet. "Go call the police! go call the governor! I bring the trouble! Don't mean to trouble ya all!" As if to say, "Yeah, a show like this should be illegal. Forgive me for that. I really don't want to get anyone in trouble." 

   "I make the bubble up! Call me the bubbler! I am the bad b--ch! The b--ch that you're lovin' up!"

   Has she enjoyed the role all along? Relished in it? Who knows. But now that's she's asking for her freedom, there should be not much pause while considering it. If she is asking for the conservatorship to come to an end, it should end as quickly as that. 

 

   

 

When Devils Will be Demons (Alternate Version)

When devils will be demons

 When they hide not from their trade

When they don't pretend to goodness
  But reveal of what they're made

When they rage against the heavens
  And they roar right out of hell

Those become the moments
  For which you can never, never tell

You don't know if their fury
  Will sweep you right off the earth

You don't know if their destruction

  Will destroy your sense of worth

Then turn your eyes toward heaven

  And God who believes in you
He will throw his arms around you
  And he will see you through

(Poems)

The Call for Becky Hammon to be a Head Coach Reaches its Fever

    Becky Hammon's quest to become the first female coach in the NBA has reached the pressing point. As the Portland Trailblazers first circulated her name as a final candidate, then passed on her, they became the third team to apparently bring her all the way to a finalist, only to fall short of hiring her.

    All that has only added to the build up that someone should hire the San Antonio assistant as their head coach. The hype has now reached a fever. Several head coaching vacancies remain open, and everyone is watching to see if Hammon will be hired for one of them. 

The COVID Stimulus and Rising Rent Prices

    As rental prices rise in Utah, it doesn't appear to be due to more rental assistance being available due to COVID. The theory behind that would be that since landlords can expect the federal government to pay the bill -- regardless how much the charge -- they are going to raise rent prices to take advantage of it. 

   But, the march upward of housing prices has not hit us just since the COVID relief funds became available. No, prices have been rising for years.

   And, would you suppose the rental market is being gluttoned because the government is giving rent assistance and so people are not buying houses? Rent is free and buying a house is not, so which would you choose? Well, shoot that theory down, as well. The price of homes rose 30 percent last year. The price of owning homes is rising faster than even rental prices. That, in fact, is seen as a big reason the rental market is being gluttoned: People cannot afford new homes, so they are forced to rent. 

   Still, it does seem the COVID money should be having some effect. Anytime you give something for free -- anytime you leave the government to pay a bill regardless if it is more than market value would otherwise be -- it seems that would be an impetus for rising prices.

   

Ghosts have Rights, Too, You Know

    "Wrongful death," cried the spirit, appealing unto the judge for a decision in his favor. "I did not need to die." 

   "Wrongful death is not a criminal matter," the judge replied. "But, you can sue. We should get you in touch with a torts lawyer." The judge paused for a moment, then tacked on a question. "Mr. Zebronovitch, why did you not get a lawyer to help you through these matters? If you had a lawyer, you would know these things."

   "We spirits do not have rights," Freddie Zebronovitch replied. "Everyone else is assigned a court-appointed attorney, but not us. That is part of the problem. I was killed and since I am not a living human being, I am not allowed to press charges. And, even if I could, they wouldn't let me testify in court. I am not allowed any of the rights that a living person has."

   Freddie paused. "Sir -- Sir Judge, If I might add to say that you have a lot of people protesting and claiming their rights these days. Everyone from the LGTBQ to Blacks being shot up by police. And, they are winning their rights. But, not us. We are being left behind in all this rush for social justice. No one concerns themselves with the rights of those who are dead."

   "Well, let me get you in touch with a news reporter," the judge replied. "I'm sure the newspapers will be glad to tell your story. Also, why don't you go out in the streets and protest like everyone else? If you think you have rights, go make a fuss about it like everyone else."

   Freddie smiled. He could see where this was going to lead. He decided right then that he -- a dead spirit -- would pay visits to news personalities in every city and every town -- not stopping by their newsrooms, but going about this like any other responsible, respectable ghost would do, visiting them after midnight in the bedrooms of their homes. Imagine the upheaval that should stir among the media, them being accosted by ghosts with grievances, begging and demanding headlines. 

   And, protests? Did the judge say protests? Then he and his fellow ghosts would take to the streets. Imagine the havoc to be caused by the faint image of ghosts shaking their chains on the open streets. Freddie laughed as he thought of old Jacob Marley, wandering the world, shaking his fist, shaking his chains, imploring the world to listen to his story of woe. This would be much worse than that: Ghosts wild on the streets, overturning dumpsters and setting them to fire.

   Freddie laughed, muttering to himself, "Ghosts have rights too, you know," and he commenced making a sign saying, "Every person should be equal, dead or alive."

President Biden Wrong about Owning a Cannon

    "The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed," President Biden said, "limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could use. You couldn't buy a cannon."

    The President is probably wrong on that, or at least wrong on the part about what type of weapons could be purchased privately. He made the same claim in 2020 while running for president -- and got shot down for it. "From the very beginning, you weren't allowed to have certain weapons," he said. "You weren't allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual."

   The fact-checkers were all over it. Politifact ruled it false. The Austin American-Statesman rated the statement false. This time Biden said it, others joined in decrying the statement as false. Warisboring.com said Biden was "seemingly unaware that cannons and warships have been covered under the Second Amendment since its creation.

 

The All-New Micky Mouse Club Taught Values We have Today

   With Britany Spears being in the news today, perhaps it is finally time to catch up with that show that vaulted her to stardom. I was surprised to learn that her, Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera made their fame on The Micky Mouse Club. 

   Make that the All-New Micky Mouse Club, running from 1989 to 1995.

   I've criticized Looney Tunes, noting it's teaching us to laugh at violence was not the best of influences on America and its children. So, what of the All-New Micky Mouse Club? Could it have been a bad influence on children, as well? First, consider that the original Micky Mouse Club targeted children. The 1989-1995 show seems more targeted toward teenagers, but by keeping with a take-off name from the original show, it kept children among its audience. So, whatever influences the show taught, it began teaching them to the youngest of audiences.

   And, what did it teach? I only watched one episode and part of another, but it glamourized most all the things that have become popular in American culture. It taught children to look for a party and a good time. Werewolves were made to be cool. Being expert at video games? Pick that up right here on the All-New Micky Mouse Club.

   What the show taught, is what our society has become. The things it taught us to value are the things we, as a society, have come to value most.  

If You aren't Free to Celebrate Freedom, what Freedom do You have?

   Since Gov. Spencer Cox announced a statewide ban on fireworks on all state and unincorporated property two weeks ago, the dominos have been falling, cities and counties adding their own bans. 

  Park City canceled its fireworks show, citing not only the danger of fires, but the need to save valuable water that would be used on show preps. Eagle Mountain banned fireworks altogether. Salt Lake County called on its residents to forego lighting private fireworks. Then, today, perhaps the most incendiary move of all -- in terms of igniting a public outcry -- Salt Lake City banned personal fireworks -- outright banned them, leaving critics wondering if Mayor Erin Mendenhall had the right to do so. 

   Freedom, you know, the right to light fireworks ranking right up there with the right to practice your religion, the right to bear guns, and the right to speak you mind. So, the right to fire a Roman candle is now right there with the right to fire a pistol.

   If you aren't free to celebrate freedom, what freedom do you have, right?

   All hyperbole aside, I support Mayor Mendenhall's decision. 

Continue to Consider that which Bill Gates Says

    Do not excuse Bill Gates for his alleged pursuit of women who worked for him, nor for his spending friendship time with Jeffrey Epstein. But, Gates remains a brilliant person. Here's hoping we continue to look at his suggestions on social issues. We need not agree with him on all points, but he is a brilliant enough thinker that we should consider what he says. 

   Melinda Gates insisting on divorcing him is understandable. Here's hoping that she, too, will continue to be a player in philanthropy and social issues. 

Religious Leader Makes Important Points Concerning Constitution

   President Dallin H. Oaks' conference talk -- in which he took on the topic of partisan politics -- continues to reverberate in Utah. Regardless whether you believe in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints , what President Oaks said is of import simply because of the number of people here who do believe in it. Plus, the talk was important from the vantage point that Oaks, a former clerk to the U.S. Supreme Court chief justice, has wisdom to impart. 

  Two of the quotes he offered that drew attention:

  One, "(The diversity of issues) will sometimes require voters to support candidates or political parties or platforms whose other positions they cannot approve. That is one reason we encourage our members to refrain from judging one another in political matters. We should never assert that a faithful Latter-day Saint cannot belong to a particular party or vote for a particular candidate." 

  Two, "There are many political issues, and no party, platform, or individual candidate can satisfy all personal preferences. Each citizen must therefore decide which issues are most important to him or her at any particular time. Then members should seek inspiration on how to exercise their influence according to their individual priorities. This process will not be easy. It may require changing party support or candidate choices, even from election to election."

  This quote is also of interest:

   "We are to be governed by law and not by individuals, and our loyalty is to the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to any office holder."

  Among the things he said that might not have received good attention were these five:

  One, "I speak from 37 years as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, responsible to study the meaning of the divinely inspired United States Constitution to the work of His restored Church."

  That he said this is significant because he is saying that as one of the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ, he has a responsibility to study the Constitution. He suggests it is part of his calling.

  Two, "The Constitution was not 'a fully grown document,' said President J. Reuben Clark. 'On the contrary,' he explained, 'we believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world.' For example, inspired amendments abolished slavery and gave women the right to vote. 

  Three, "However, we do not see inspiration in every Supreme Court decision interpreting the Constitution."

  Thus, an acknowledgment that every Supreme Court decision might not be correct.

  Four, "A second inspired principle is the division of delegated power between the nation and its subsidiary states. In our federal system, this unprecedented principle has sometimes been altered by inspired amendments, such as those abolishing slavery and extending voting rights to women, mentioned earlier. Significantly, the United States Constitution limits the national government to the exercise of powers granted expressly or by implication, and it reserves all other government powers 'to the States respectively, or to the people.' "

  Thus, President Oaks reaffirmed the belief that much of the work of government should be reserved to the states.

  Five, "Another inspired principle is the separation of powers. Well over a century before our 1787 Constitutional Convention, the English Parliament pioneered the separation of legislative and executive authority when they wrested certain powers from the king. The inspiration in the American convention was to delegate independent executive, legislative, and judicial powers so these three branches could exercise checks upon one another."

  Thus, he emphasized that the three branches of government should operate independent of each other. This might seem an obvious thing, but that President Oaks said this opens the possibility that he was looking at current experiences, events of which have left some of us questioning whether the different branches are reaching into the powers of the others.

If You are Against Abortion, Perhaps You Should be for Contraceptives

    If you are against abortion, perhaps you should be for contraceptives. No child is conceived if contraceptives are used. If you are against life being taken, and believe the unborn are living, then you should not want the child to be conceived only to be aborted later.

    Those who do not want the children most likely don't want them before they do the act that creates them. Let them, then, be able to opt out before the child is even conceived. If you are of the belief that that deprives a spirit from coming to earth, I would suggest it doesn't. It simply saves the spirit from taking a body that is shortly to be killed. That spirit can then come to earth in a body that is not going to suffer through an abortion. 

Let's Talk about Bill Gates and Population Control

    Bill Gates has studied emissions. He knows the more people, the more pollution. In the U.S., the average person brings about 20 ton of CO2 per year. In poorer countries, the average person requires less than a single ton of CO2 emissions. The thing, though, is that poor countries often have much larger families. In Niger, the average family has about seven children. 

   Gates looks at that and suggests the folks of Niger do not need to have that many children. Often, they themselves do not want so many children. If they had greater access to contraceptives, they might choose to use them. They might choose to have smaller families.

   My understanding is that contraceptives do not even allow life to be created -- at all. So, it is fair to ask this question: If it is wrong for those in Niger to choose not to have children by using contraceptives, is it wrong for those in the U.S. to choose not to have families with seven children? Some U.S. families do have seven (mine did). Others do not. Do we look at the family with two children and tell them they are wrong to only have two? I have not seen that. And, am glad I haven't.

   You might argue, though, that Gates is also for abortion. I am guessing he, indeed, is. Many families have children they do not want and would to prevent it by aborting them. But, this point is worthy: If they were provided contraceptives, and could keep from having unwanted children that way, they would not need to have the abortions. There would still be some abortions, for they might change their minds and say, I wanted the child when I became pregnant, but now I've changed my mind. 

   Still, the number of abortions would be way down. Usually, those who had not already chosen not to have children by using contraceptives would not change their minds.

(Index -- Climate change info)

Back When Bill Gates was the Most-Admired Person on the Planet

 Back in a better day, when Bill Gates was the most-admired person in the world, we have this interview. It's a must-see for anyone who wants to know the real Bill Gates, a must-see for all those who are practicing cancel culture against him. You cannot listened to this video without realizing Bill Gates has a heart of gold. Go to the 7:30 mark, and see his humility, despite all his riches. Gates has given away maybe $100 billion. Back then, he was said to be the greatest philanthropist in all history, a man who achieved insane wealth just to retire and give it all away. Those were better times, times when good people were seen for their goodness, times when they weren't demonized and turned into something creepy evil. Oh, and did I mention he took on the world's best chess player, Magnus Carlsen, the so-called Mozart of Chess? Yes, right here in this interview. See, back then, Gates was not only #1 on the list of the most-admired, but #1 on the list of those considered most-intelligent. Since Magnus Carlsen was also on the list, they figured they'd match them in a chess showdown. If you know chess, and you follow their moves on this video, you will see Gates played well enough. But, it was bullet-speed chess. Gates had two minutes to make all his moves. Carlsen had but 30 seconds. From best I can tell, they didn't script the moves for Magnus to win, but who knows. From what I see, Magnus simply knew the mind of someone playing speed chess, and calculated what they would fall for. Magnus checkmated him in nine moves, needing only like 12 of his 30 seconds to accomplish the feat. And Gates? He was a very gracious loser. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFi48q7X3ac

I Wish I Were Out of the Loop (Around My Neck)

How's the world and the world we live in?

How's my family tonight?

Hope you are well, hope you are happy

Hope everything's going all right. 

Thought I'd drop you a note, drop you a line

To say how I'm doing this day

I'm still chessing and fessing and messing with life

And keeping most of my devils at bay

I'm still running and playing and going to church

Still staying up till midnight is gone

I wish for more hours, I wish for more day

So I can keep on pushing the king and the pawn

But if the days are too short, and life not long enough

And it becomes vanity even to hope

I'll still pray for the 'morrow, still pray for the day

When I can escape the end of the rope

Naftali Bennett Pledges to be Friends with Those of Different Views

    The spirit of Naftali Bennett, Israel's new prime minister, is worthy of note.

    "Twice in history, we have lost our national home precisely because the leaders of the generation were not able to sit with one and another and compromise. Each was right, yet with all their being right, they burnt the house down on top of us," Bennett said. "I am proud of the ability to sit together with people of very different views from my own."

   Tolerance for the views of others is a worthy, yet very rare thing in the politics of the world. Peace comes not with a sword, but with an arm tossed around those who sees differently.

If the Foes of a Nation Divide its People, They can Conquer its Spirit

    The peace of a nation depends on its love. A nation where people love each other will not be split by spats between parties. If you can look at your neighbor, and love them -- if you have an earnestness for their welfare -- how far does that go towards bringing peace to your nation?

   How far does it go towards bringing strength? A nation whose people will not be divided will rally together for the challenges it faces. If the foes of that nation cannot divide its people, they cannot conquer its spirit.  

In Addition to Their Being Enemies, Let Them become Friends

  All the protesting we have just gone through: What have we learned from the past that we can take into the future? Those who do not learn from the past usually flunk when they try to take care of the future. We can see the protests got out of hand. We can see the participants of the two sides -- whether protesting or just speaking on social media and such -- were not friendly with each other, casting the other as Satan, himself.

   So, we should seek to create venues for debate that bring respect for each other. I don't know, off top maybe have the two sides enjoy an ice cream social together -- with political discussion off the table for those opening moments -- before they enjoy their debate with each other. Help them build friendships with each other in hopes it will turn down the rancor once the debating does begin. You are kinder to a friend who is your enemy than you are to someone who is your enemy, alone. 

Why Canceling Kids' Cartoons is a Good Idea

    "How about we clean up all the filthy movies," says the Facebook meme, "TV, websites and song lyrics before we cancel food labels, cartoons and kids books!?"

   "Cartoons and kids books need the same care," I reply. "We should be concerned about what our children are watching and reading. I think of candy cigarettes. Would we dismiss them as just candy? I watch some of the Looney Tunes and wonder at the violence in them. This is the entertainment we think good for our children? 

Pledge Them to Play Fair

    Without changing the Constitution, what can we do to help the court system be free from the influence of the other two branches of government? One of the beauties of our form of government is the check-and-balance effect that comes with having the three branches independent of each other, separation of powers, we call it. 

   One, Stick with nine justices. Expanding it would allow the party in power to wield political influence over the court. We already have too much of that. 

   Two, Appeal to  the President and the Senate to seek justices who will seek to stand by the Constitution regardless of politics. Have them take pledges that they will seek out candidates whose only concern is to interpret the law by the words of the law. Make them pledge to seek candidates who will be fair and impartial.

   Three, As the justices are sworn in, pledge them to refuse to be influenced by political influences. Pledge them to look at no more than what the law says, and to keep their decisions tight on ensuring the language of the law determines what their rulings will be.

   These things might not seem much. But, we must do all we can to ensure separation of powers. What little we can do, we should do. Pledging someone to a principle does have its effect. They will be more inclined to play fairly if they are pledged to play fairly.

Donald McGahn is a Man of Integrity

    May Donald McGahn go down in history with the great stature he deserves. Today, the news was all over the release of a transcript of a hearing he had with lawmakers last week. He stood by the Mueller Report. He didn't overly condemn the former president. He was honest. He was charitable towards Trump. There are among our leaders those who do not have great integrity. McGahn is not among them. He does.

Justice Should be Equitable in Capitol and 2020 Riots

   Pick up today's newspaper. Read how Sen. Mike Lee (and four other Republican senators) are protesting that the defendants in the Capitol riot are being prosecuted more vigorously than those who participated in violent protests in 2020.

   Now, one must wonder if the Republican senators have done their homework, that they should even be assuming that justice is not being equally divided. It would seem they should be bringing a list of offenses committed in the 2020 protests and comparing them directly to those of the Capitol protest. Instead, from what I read, the Republican senators mostly ask questions: How many people were arrested for committing crimes during the 2020 riots? Did federal law enforcement officers use geolocation data from defendants' cell phones? How many rioters were released on bail? Etc. 

   Still, Lee and his fellows are right. Justice should be equitable. So great was the fright from our nation's very Capitol having come under attack that we sought urgently  to bring all those offenders to justice. That is not wrong. But, if we were lax in prosecuting those in the 2020 protests -- on both sides of the question -- then we should go back and see if more can be done. 

There are Other Forms of Slavery

    Slavery? There are other forms than that which we fought over in the Civil War. Anytime one person displays dominion over another, that is slavery. Yes, communist countries practice it. But, we should not think we, in America, are free from using our power and position over others.

    I speak of some of us, not all of us. Leaders are most susceptible to practicing this form of slavery. They use their position to get their subordinates to do things, to require them to do them in order to remain in good standing with them. Spouses are also guilty of this offense, controlling their partners. We call them control freaks and sometimes suppose it is not such a bad thing. But, being overbearing of another person can cause great damage. When one partner is subjected to doing what the other requires, this becomes a form of slavery. 

   When a leader manipulates the lives of followers, that, too, is wrong. Sometimes the leader uses his or her position to hold followers down in their positions in life. Sometimes, the leader makes unwarranted accusations against the follower, reducing their esteem among the whole group. There are many ways leaders can practice unrighteous dominion, and they amount to a form of slavery.

   A teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that it is the nature and disposition of almost all people, as soon as they get a little authority over others, to begin to exercise dominion over them. That statement suggests almost all leaders have a tendency to do this. We should look at ourselves, then, and see if we are practicing unrighteous dominion -- a manner of slavery -- over those we are charged to care for. 

'Continuance in Office' Means While They are in Office -- That's all.

    A website titled uscourts.gov speaks of the Supreme Court Judges, the appeals courts judges and district court judges, saying they are appointed for life -- per the U.S. Constitution. But, search the Constitution and you won't find that.

   Now, I don't know, but uscourts.gov sounds like a government website -- an official website. It says, "Article III of the Constitution states that these judicial officers are appointed for a life term." But, it isn't there. It isn't in Article III.

   Section 1 of Article III does say this: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." Has "Continuance in Office" been interpreted to mean for life -- because it's just not there. Continuance in Office means while they are in office, that's all. 

The Tulsa Race Massacre and the Cover-up that Followed

    Scott Ellsworth would come to write a book on this. But, back then, growing up in Tulsa Oklahoma, it was hid from his eyes and from his ears -- and from the eyes and ears of most everyone growing up in the city.

   No memorial anywhere in town marked the 1921 massacre. Teachers in school made no mention of it, even when discussing local history. And, if it wasn't being discussed even in Tulsa, where it happened, you know it was being covered up all across America.   

   Ellsworth told the online publication Insider the Tulsa Race Massacre stands as "one of the biggest skeletons" in American history. "There was a concerted effort to absolutely bury and suppress this history. Official records disappeared, never to be seen again," Ellsworth told Insider. "Individuals who tried to study this as late as the early 1970s had their lives and their jobs threatened. Tulsa's white daily newspapers went way out their way not to ever mention it for 50 years. It was just a taboo subject."

    Perhaps as many as 300 were killed. A white mob rioted in a community known as "Black Wall Street," because it was so successful that in a small way, it mirrored New York's Wall Street. That grated at some of the White people, and thus they burned the area down. 

    An air assault brought rifle fire and firebombs from above. The Greenwood, Oklahoma, community had been the wealthiest Black community in all of America, but was reduced to shambles. 

   What of this dark moment in American history? Have you, as a reader, ever heard of it? 

These are Two of the Things We Should be Careful How We Teach

    It is said these two things are taught in Critical Race Theory classes. I do not know that that is true -- I'm guessing in some classes, it probably is true -- but I have reservations about how we do include these teachings in our race diversity instruction. The two things taught:

   1. Here are ways you can reject your White privilege. 

   I believe in "White privilege." It does exist. There are times a White person will get away with things that a Black person does not. There are times when Whites are given privileges Blacks are not. I believe, though, the instruction should also include notice that in many situations, with many people, there is no such thing as White privilege. Some people are very fair and even in the way they treat Black people. In addition, there will be times White people are protective of Black people to the point they might do favors for them. I am not saying that is wrong, but it should be pointed out. Sometimes, someone who is defensive of Black people might give them scholarships, etc., based on their color. That is not wrong. It is nice to do good. But, it should be pointed out in the diversity training. 

   2. Don't get defensive when a person of color tells you your words, tone and behavior are racist, oppressive and triggering. 

   There are times White people's words, tone and behavior are racist, oppressive and triggering. We do need to be introspective enough to take those moments and consider whether the person of color is correct. And, if we are displaying words, tone and behavior that are offensive, we need to own up and correct our ways. But, people of color should be taught not to overjudge. They should not be given license to call things racist that are not racist. When a person is given carte blanche permission to judge another person, there are going to be wrongful judgements.

    

Let Trump and Fact-Checkers Both Have Their Free Speech

    Donald Trump's shutting down his website should serve to help us understand how irreplaceable social the media platforms Twitter and Facebook are -- and why everyone should have access to them and not be blocked from participating. 

   Trump's website was reportedly drawing less than 2,000 reads on some days, way, way down from how many reads his Twitter posts once had. In America, if you need electricity, you use the utility provided. It is a private company, but they never block anyone from participating. Twitter and Facebook have become so vital to the distribution of free speech that they are, in essence, public utilities, and people should not be blocked from participating.

   Yes, flag the inaccurate stories. Provide fact-checking links. But, do not silence free speech by banning President Trump or anyone else. Let Trump and everyone else have the full benefits of free speech. 

   And, speaking of fact-checkers, they, too, should enjoy free speech. There are many who would do away with them. That, too, is wrong. Nobody's voice should be silenced, and that include the voices of the fact-checkers.

    

Why Shut Down Donald Trump's Website?

 (Note added 6/3/21: Hurry-up blogs can be a mistake. This one I wrote without reading the story. As it turns out, Trump shut down his own website.)

 T   I don't have time to so much as read the story, but headlines are saying former President Trump's website has been shut down. I do not like this. There are two things about it that I find disheartening.

   (1.) Free speech is at stake. Donald Trump should have the right to say what he will.

    (2.) It gives him ammunition. He can point to the injustice being done to him and come off looking like the good guy. For all I know he will have just cause to file a lawsuit. 

These Powers would be Safer if Out of the Reach of Politicians

    I'd say I was wrong. I wrote:

   "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. . . .

   "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." 

   I was right about the commissions trying to take over the work that should be done by the DOJ. Do let the DOJ do its job. But the Constitution does not specify that investigations are to be done by the judicial branch, nor does it suggest the DOJ should be administered by the judicial branch. Yes, it might be good if that were the case, to ensure separation of powers, but it isn't in the Constitution. 

   Forgive, but I think it would be an improvement. I think you do want separation of powers. I look at how President Trump tried to weld his power over the courts and judicial system and see it as very dangerous that we do not have more separation of powers. I think of the time he said something to the effect that he was the chief judicial officer in America. Make the lines clear and distinct. Do not leave room for a politician to reach in and grab authority in the judicial system.