Joseph Gives Us Early Example of Government Welfare

It is Joseph, the same who was sold into Egypt, who gives us one of the earliest and best examples of government welfare.

Of government taking over an industry, to save it.

Of government reaching out to save the economy.

Yes, Joseph conducted a massive and far-reaching government program, he did. There were seven plenteous years, and then seven lean years. Joseph had the government store up food during the good years, then allocated it out during the bad.

The point is, not all government is bad. Not all government intervention is bad. Not all government welfare is bad.

Free Enterprise Wonderful, but not Perfect

In all our love for capitalism, we must not think it perfect.

Nor must we think the free-enterprise system without flaw.

Years ago, a doctor up in Bountiful told me I definitely needed neck, high-back surgery. I declined, and have been healthy ever since (in that part of my body). There is an error in our system. If the doctor who performs the surgery is the same as who makes the diagnosis, he is going to be inclined to call for surgery.

Months ago, I had my car in at Pep Boys. Their electronic diagnosis said I needed a new alternator. They were ready to do it, but it occurred to me if my battery was not going dead, how was it that the alternator was going out? That was such a natural question that it seems Pep Boys should have been asking it, before I did, instead of justifying charging me hundreds of dollars for a new alternator.

I write that off, too, as an example of private enterprise being too anxious to make a dollar at my expense.

I'm sure you, the reader, have stories of your own.

Free enterprise is wonderful, but not perfect.

Declare the Unborn as Human, then Abortion Endangered

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's (Roe's) case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the amendment."

So we read from the decision of Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal across America. The decision noted that no legal case could be cited in which a fetus was held to be a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court also held that, "The law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn."

So, what if a state were to pass a law, defining the unborn as living humans, and according them legal rights?

There is a movement across America to do so. But, surprisingly, every effort so far has failed. Mississippi, Colorado, Virginia . . . all have mounted such efforts, and all have failed.

In Utah, Sen. Aaron Osmond considered introducing such legislation this past session, but chose to pursue other legislative matters, instead.

If Utah or another state does pass such legislation, then a new court case could come up through the courts, be appealed to the Supreme Court, and Roe vs. Wade be overturned.

In making its decision in Roe vs. Wade, the Court conceded that if personhood is established, then the unborn lays claim to the right of life guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The scientific evidence that the unborn is a living human has only grown since 1973. Now, if only a state will declare the unborn to be human, and to have rights, thus rendering no longer true the Court's assertion that no such law exists.

Then Roe vs. Wade will be ripe to be overturned.

To Look at this Picture is to Say the Fetus is Human

This picture making the rounds on the Internet -- I saw it on Facebook -- makes as strong an argument against abortion as anything. The baby is said to be but 12 weeks into gestation.

"Don't know how anyone can look at this and say that is not a person." said Russell Brooksbank (a Facebook friend of mine) when he saw the picture.

 

We Now Give Those Who Speak Spanish Ability to Vote

This coming election, a group of voters having been disenfranchised in the past will be disenfranchised no more.

Those who speak only Spanish.

The ballot has been printed only in English, but, with the 2010 census showing so many Spanish-speaking residents in Salt Lake County, the county will be required to print Spanish ballots.

Whether more Spanish speakers will actually come vote, I do not know. But, in theory, they should. If the ballot isn't even in the language you speak, it would seem you wouldn't likely turn out to vote.

It would be impractical to print the ballot in very many languages, but, when a foreign-language population becomes large enough -- as is the Spanish-speaking portion of Salt Lake County -- then it becomes justified to print the ballot in that language.

Some will argue that English is the language of America, and if others want to come here to live, they should learn our language. We should not pander to them.

I would say, in reply, that whether you think learning English should be a requirement, at present, it is not. The laws of the land are what they are. They have gained citizenship, are Americans, and therefore have the right to vote.

But, cannot if they cannot even read the ballot. Oh, they could go vote, but they would be taking shots in the dark.

'Tis a good thing to make it so such a reasonable-sized portion of the population -- without a way to meaningfully vote in the past -- now has that opportunity.

When you can do good, and help someone, that is charity. Why should we not want to show charity in this matter? Why would we suppose they are not worthy of our charity? They are citizens. They are fellow Americans. Giving them the ability to vote is the right thing to do, the right way to treat them

Requiring Picture I.D. Could Disenfranchise Some

Does requiring a government-issued picture I.D. to vote disenfranchise some?

Such was one of the topics on The Nightside (which is on KSL Radio in the evenings). In the past, all you needed to do was sign next to your name, but now a person must show the picture I.D.

Since some do not drive, riding the bus instead, there are many who simply do not have a driver's license. For the most part, those with out the I.D. are among the poorer of society.

Are we disenfranchising them?

Me thinks we are. Most people have no other government-issue picture I.D. than their driver's license, Without that, there is nothing. Now, you can argue that a person can get an I.D. other than a driver's license, and that they need some kind of I.D. to cash checks, and identify themselves, anyway, so the I.D. card is the thing they should get.

True. But some don't. Some are going to show up to vote, unaware of the new rule, and be turned away. Only a small number, it is true, but that does not make them expendable. We should provide a way for them to vote.

Just thinking on the spot, one thought would be to I.D. everyone who has I.D. and let those vote who don't have picture I.D. but allow their votes to listed where someone could contest them within the next few days. All those signatures would then have to be matched with the signature they signed with when registering to vote. Maybe there would be so few without I.D. that they all could have their signatures checked against their registration signatures, for that matter.

Fair is fair, but leaving someone out is not. Everyone who is eligible to vote should be allowed to do so.

They Say We Should Not Force Our Morals Upon Them

I come up with no good thoughts tonight, as I contemplate yesterday's topic. Utah is a peculiar state, dominated by a single religion, and the backlash against that has many crying that we should not thrust our beliefs upon others, that we should not force our morals upon others.

Will I think on it some more, and then write? Or, will I move on to another topic Tomorrow?