This is a Little Bit of a Scandal

Note: It is Monday, two days after I wrote this. Today, I learned the other side of the story. I must be going to bed right now, but will post in the next couple days. What I am learning alters my thoughts. At this point, I am thinking there is not the scandal I perceived. I need to look into it more, just the same, though. In a nutshell, the 30-day period might have nothing to do with it, but rather a law that says all new parties must register a year in advance of the election.

Blog wrote on Saturday:

   There's a little bit of a scandal here. The Elections Office should be facilitating the United Utah Party, not standing in its way. When Jim Bennett and the party have done all required to create a party and get on the ballot, and the Elections Office refuses to process the filings in good time, that is wrong. It is obstructing the very government process you were appointed to accommodate. If the officials are refusing to certify the party and Bennett's candidacy because it runs against the interests of the Republican Party, that makes it even worse. You don't use your public office to forward your own personal interests, or the interest of your party, at the expense of what you were appointed to do, and at the expense of what is best for the public. The Elections Office should do its job, and that is to certify all parties and candidates that qualify. The Elections Office is taking 30 days to certify the party simply because the law gives it 30 days, and election officials have chosen to use the full 30 days because they know that puts Bennett beyond the deadline for getting on the ballot. They could have looked at the paperwork presented the first day, saw that it was in order, and certified it. Wrong is wrong. What they are doing is wrong, and there should be an outcry demanding Bennett be placed on the ballot (as he qualified to be). Yes, what is happening qualifies as a little bit of a scandal.

The Party that Allows You to Think on Your Own

   Many are moderates because all their views don't fit in one box. They think each issue through, on its merits, instead of signing on just because it's the party's position. So, almost by definition, a moderate party shouldn't dictate too many political stands. Moderates aren't locked into opinions fed them by others.
  I have often thought it strange that everyone in one group should align on issue after issue, the same people believing in climate change also believing in abortion. Climate change and abortion are not related. If you are thinking each issue through, you might agree with climate change but disagree with abortion. It is strange, indeed, then, that one group of people should agree on issue after issue after issue, and the other group take the opposite stand on issue after issue after issue. If people are thinking each issue through, they simply are not going to agree on everything.
   Forgive, but I think this proof that people aren't thinking each issue through on its merits. I think it is evidence enough that we generally have closed minds. We believe what someone else -- the party -- tells us, instead of coming to an opinion on our own. It gives cause to wonder, when you think of the term "sheeple," if most of us are not sheeple. We blindly follow the party line. I would like to think the new United Utah party will not be this way. I would like to think it will become not the party of the closed mind, but the party of the open mind.
   I would even suggest that as a possible slogan: "Not the party of the closed mind, but of the open mind."
   Politicians often get in trouble for changing their opinions, flip-floppers, we call them. This shouldn't be so. An intellectually honest person will change his or her opinion when evidence surfaces warranting the change. So, even when you come to an opinion, you should be open to change. The honest politician is not the one who refuses to "waffle," but the one who has the courage to do so. There is honesty and integrity in admitting you are wrong. We should not assign shame to it. It has been said, it takes a big man to admit he is wrong. If this is true, there are few big men in politics.
   So, if the United Utah wants to set itself apart from the other parties, I would suggest it can do so by being the party that thinks things through, rather than just answering to dogma.
   This, too, could be a possible motto: "Not the party of dogma, but of thinking."
   The United Utah Party? Let it be the party that allows you to have your own opinion, instead of telling you what to think.
 
 

Who is Parroting Who?

   "Turn a globe and point your finger anywhere, you will find American interest and interference there." -- Vladimir Putin, in discussing the accusation that Russia interfered in the U.S. election.
  I cannot help notice this argument has been forwarded by Trump supporters in the U.S.  Who is parroting who? Is Putin parroting the comments he has read from those in the U.S.? Or did the argument originate in Russia, from propaganda specialists there?
  I wonder if some talking points we here over here might have originated with the Russians, being fed to us by propaganda specialists who participate in letters to talk shows, etc. When the Intel report on Russian interference in our election said the influence was largely achieved by propaganda an disinformation, we wondered which news stories might be examples. Well, lately, listening to Putin, I have wondered if I haven't seen more than one example.

Why Muzzle James Comey from being Open about His Own Affairs?

   So, we learn James Comey leaked contents of a memo he had written about a meeting with President Trump. I don't see the crime, nor the fault. He was in the meeting. He was a participant. If he wants to say what happened, let him. Why muzzle a man who would but be open with the public about his own affairs?
   What if President Trump recorded the conversation? Isn't the rule that just one of the participating parties must be aware of the recording to make it legal? That makes Trump's recording legal. But, perhaps by the same token, it makes what Comey did in revealing what took place as ethical as what Trump did by recording the conversation. Trump should not cry foul against Comey if he is playing much the same game.
 I am not a fan of governing behind closed doors. We should open up many of the closed meetings we do have. Does that go so far as to prevent the president and his FBI director from meeting  in private? Perhaps not. Still, if one of the participants wants to disclose what they discussed, as long as it doesn't endanger national security, let him.

Why was Jeremy Patterson not Arrested for his Threats?

   Simply making a threat of violence is an arrestable offense. I wonder if the Draper Police Department was aware of this when they were told of the threats against Memorez Rackley. It seems an immediate arrest of Jeremy Patterson was in order. It would have saved lives. One wonders why the police did not arrest Patterson for his threats.

Let Alex Jones Face Critical Scrutiny

  Megyn Kelly is under fire for her interview with Alex Jones, which is scheduled to air on "Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly." Advertisers are pulling out. NBC is being pressured to drop the piece. Even Alex Jones doesn't want it to air.
  Jones is a conspiracy theorist. One of his theories is that Sandy Hook was staged. If I understand it correctly, parents mourning the deaths of their children were accused of being actors. Those wanting the piece pulled are outraged that Kelly is giving Jones a public forum.
   I say the piece should run.
   Not covering Jones is not going to make him go away. He has his "Infowars" show. His views are going to be out there whether Kelly and NBC run the interview or not. You can go to his site and sites friendly to him and get his views without much opposing view.
   Kelly is not such a believer. She calls his theory "revolting." She pushes back.
   If the theories of Jones are solid, let them be exposed to scrutiny from one of America's best journalists. These theories have a wide audience. And, if that audience is given no reason to disbelieve, it will only continue to grow. You don't debunk anything by refusing to discuss it. Looking the other way doesn't make something go away.
  So, as I said, if Jones's theories are valid, let them stand up to scrutiny. Truth doesn't run from reason. So, let Kelly reason with him.
   

Pictures on the Wall and Lifeguards on the Shore

   "I'm asking each of you to consider this as if you were considering it for the first time," the congressman said, as he skirted his eyes around the room of fellow lawmakers. "Abortion."

   He paused, then said. "Excuse me. I've asked for the lights to go out just for a short time." The lights then went out, and the face of a six-month unborn appeared on a large screen on one wall. The face lacked nothing. All the features of a newborn were there. 

   "Can we look at this and say it isn't a child?" the congressman asked. "Can we look at it and suppose it isn't living? Do we have any question whether it is a human?"

   He paused again. "Well, then. If we abort it, can we do so without killing it?" He paused again.

   "I think it is obvious," he said, and then paused but briefly before suggesting, "The unborn person before you is alive. If we are going to abort it, we are going to have to kill it."

   He paused again. The screen went black. Then, a second photo appeared. This one was from much earlier in the gestation, the unborn being but weeks old.

   "I give unto you the same child," the congressman said. "No, he would not be viable outside the womb. But, you can see the limbs. You can see the characteristics of a human. If you could place your ear right next to his chest, I don't know, you might even hear a heartbeat."

    He paused again.

    "Anyone want to take a chance that this is not yet alive?" This time, he gave a longer pause, letting the meaning of the question sink in. "Because, if it isn't alive, it becomes legal to abort it." 

   Another pause.

   "I don't think there is any one of you who knows for certain that that isn't a living being. If you are going to abort it, you are going to have to take a chance. To me, it looks every bit to a forming person." He paused just slightly. "I'm going to ask the same questions I asked when the face of the six-month old was on the screen. Can we look at this and say it isn't a child? Can we look at it and suppose it isn't living? This unborn might well be alive. If we are going to abort it, we are going to have to confess we might well be taking the life of another person."

   He paused. The lights went on.

   "We have a responsibility," he said. "We must do what we can. I'm introducing legislation to amend the Constitution. If we don't know whether that unborn is alive, we must save it. If the day comes we fully determine the unborn are not alive, perhaps then we can feel comfortable about aborting them. At this point, we are not that advanced on the subject. 

   "If these are alive, or if they stand a good chance of being alive, if they cannot speak for themselves but must rely on us, if we are the ones who must stand up for them, I want to be one who does speak up for them, who does stand up for them."

    He paused again.

    "Surely, you, also, want to help them."

   He paused.

   "Do you? Will you?"

   Another pause.

   "Together, we must do all we can. If we don't introduce a constitutional amendment, it won't get done. If it gets introduced but isn't ratified by enough states, so be it." He paused again. "But, we must try. If the lifeguard jumps in, but is unable to save a drowning person, that is tragic. But, if the lifeguard doesn't even jump in, doesn't even attempt to save the drowning person . . . "

   He paused yet again.

  "Each of us -- we cannot be such a lifeguard."

   The congressman then paused a final time, looking around the audience, as if to silently beg and implore.

   Then, he sat down.

Indexes: Stories, abortion