The America I envision? Let me tell you the people in Maple Faucet. They were amazing. They took your traditional county fair, and turned it into something political. I remember when they first did it in 2019, it set the whole nation on its ear.
You walked in thinking it was just another fair, what with the Ferris wheel, the helicopter rides, and all. Lot's of bands, and there were a couple magicians, and a two or three comedians.
But, that isn't what this fair was about, and that wasn't what most people came to see. No, they came for the politics. You've never seen such a gathering, such a production, such a discussion of all things political. If you wanted to discuss and learn about climate change, that was in the main auditorium. For abortion, you'd go to a tent set up on the west side. The Trump discussion? That was also in a tent -- a large tent -- over by the east fence.
Now, you'd have to know these people in Maple Faucet. Decent folk. Not many cities would pull off an event like this without a lot of rancor and bickering. After all, in most places, that's what politics are all about: fighting and feuding and demeaning each other. Not so, in Maple Faucet. Most every one of the issue discussions began with an informative video. Then, when they did open the floor to discussion, it was even-handed.
"Max, what do you think about this?" one person would ask. And, Max would offer his thoughts and no one would jump all over him. They weren't there to fight with each other, but to learn from one another.
Only in Maple Faucet, I guess. Or, as Maple Faucet represents an imaginary America in my story, only in America -- the America I would like to see.
Sunday, August 6, 2017
Friday, August 4, 2017
The Harm from Alcohol and Drugs Goes beyond Drunken Driving
Most can see how alcohol and drugs should be outlawed when a person is driving a car. With the increased risk of accident, our drunken-driving laws are seen as wise and necessary.
But, does it go unnoticed that those who are drunken and drug-impaired are also more likely to make decisions that harm others, period? All kinds of decisions. It is not just when they are behind the steering wheel of a vehicle. Do we acknowledge they are more likely to kill, for example?
Or, am I wrong?
There are, what, 10,000 alcohol-impaired traffic fatalities in a year? Aren't roughly a third of all traffic fatalities the result of alcohol-impaired driving? We can see it would be foolish to not outlaw drunken driving, so we outlaw it.
But what of the other harms brought on by those who are substance impaired? Do we ignore them? Do we somehow say that is different? Do we even keep track of how many murders are committed by the alcohol impaired? (Don't know that I've even ever hear the term, "alcohol-impaired murder.") Do we track the share of murders committed by those who are marijuana-impaired?
Perhaps we do keep some of these statistics. I read of how 37 percent of sexual assaults are committed by those under the influence of alcohol.
It doesn't escape me that 37 percent for sexual assaults is about the same as one-third for traffic fatalities. We have similar results, but we don't have similar standards. Why the double standard? Should there be a double standard? We justify one, but we don't justify the other. Why?
But, does it go unnoticed that those who are drunken and drug-impaired are also more likely to make decisions that harm others, period? All kinds of decisions. It is not just when they are behind the steering wheel of a vehicle. Do we acknowledge they are more likely to kill, for example?
Or, am I wrong?
There are, what, 10,000 alcohol-impaired traffic fatalities in a year? Aren't roughly a third of all traffic fatalities the result of alcohol-impaired driving? We can see it would be foolish to not outlaw drunken driving, so we outlaw it.
But what of the other harms brought on by those who are substance impaired? Do we ignore them? Do we somehow say that is different? Do we even keep track of how many murders are committed by the alcohol impaired? (Don't know that I've even ever hear the term, "alcohol-impaired murder.") Do we track the share of murders committed by those who are marijuana-impaired?
Perhaps we do keep some of these statistics. I read of how 37 percent of sexual assaults are committed by those under the influence of alcohol.
It doesn't escape me that 37 percent for sexual assaults is about the same as one-third for traffic fatalities. We have similar results, but we don't have similar standards. Why the double standard? Should there be a double standard? We justify one, but we don't justify the other. Why?
Thursday, August 3, 2017
Should all Land the Federal Government Owns be given it by States?
I change my mind on the federal government's right to own and direct our wilderness and such lands.
Then, I change it back. Then, I go into a mode of not being sure what opinion to hold.
I'm reading along in the Constitution, when I come to the part where it says the federal government has authority to run places it has purchased from the states to use as military installations.
It says those places purchased by the federal government shall be sold with the consent of the state legislatures.
Well -- just as it has occurred to millions before me -- it occurs to me that if the federal government can only have land for military sites if the states grants over those properties, by extension, if it owns other federal lands, it should only do so if the states grant those lands over.
And, many take what the Constitution says a step further. They say it means that other than such properties outlined in the Constitution, the federal government is to own no property at all.
I consider on it. At the time the Constitution was written, there was no federal government. It follows, then, that the federal government owned not a single piece of property. If it were to obtain land, it would have to obtain it from the states.
So, what the Constitution says is but an acknowledgment that the federal government would have to acquire land if it were to have land. It did not prohibit the federal government from obtaining open land as the nation grew westward.
Or is that what the Constitution is saying? Should all land the federal government owns be granted it only if state legislatures appropriate such properties to the federal government?
I will think on it some more.
Then, I change it back. Then, I go into a mode of not being sure what opinion to hold.
I'm reading along in the Constitution, when I come to the part where it says the federal government has authority to run places it has purchased from the states to use as military installations.
It says those places purchased by the federal government shall be sold with the consent of the state legislatures.
Well -- just as it has occurred to millions before me -- it occurs to me that if the federal government can only have land for military sites if the states grants over those properties, by extension, if it owns other federal lands, it should only do so if the states grant those lands over.
And, many take what the Constitution says a step further. They say it means that other than such properties outlined in the Constitution, the federal government is to own no property at all.
I consider on it. At the time the Constitution was written, there was no federal government. It follows, then, that the federal government owned not a single piece of property. If it were to obtain land, it would have to obtain it from the states.
So, what the Constitution says is but an acknowledgment that the federal government would have to acquire land if it were to have land. It did not prohibit the federal government from obtaining open land as the nation grew westward.
Or is that what the Constitution is saying? Should all land the federal government owns be granted it only if state legislatures appropriate such properties to the federal government?
I will think on it some more.
Evidence in Dallas: A Little Pot Might Make a Person Less Rational
Among the news items of the day: A man was beaten badly on a rapid transit train in the Dallas area -- for asking a group to quit smoking marijuana.
I wonder on marijuana. I wonder if it leads you to do things you wouldn't do if you were not under its influence. I wonder if those in the group were influenced by their marijuana. Are marijuana users more likely to be irrational, and perhaps turn violent at times?
Most proponents of marijuana would perhaps concede the point, noting it is no revelation that marijuana is an influence. The question is rather, they would say, whether people should be free to choose to take marijuana.
My point is, though, that perhaps they lose the very freedom they seek when they take marijuana. Their decisions are affected, altered by the drug. Sometimes, they mourn and lament the decisions they made while under the influence.
I wonder on marijuana. I wonder if it leads you to do things you wouldn't do if you were not under its influence. I wonder if those in the group were influenced by their marijuana. Are marijuana users more likely to be irrational, and perhaps turn violent at times?
Most proponents of marijuana would perhaps concede the point, noting it is no revelation that marijuana is an influence. The question is rather, they would say, whether people should be free to choose to take marijuana.
My point is, though, that perhaps they lose the very freedom they seek when they take marijuana. Their decisions are affected, altered by the drug. Sometimes, they mourn and lament the decisions they made while under the influence.
To Support Sunday Closures, I Consider Eating at Chick-fil-A
After being closed Sundays for 70 years, Macey's is swinging its doors open on the Sabbath Day.
It seems a little amazing that in the Salt Lake Valley, with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints headquartered here, we will now be left without a grocery store closed on Sundays.
I once shopped exclusively at Macey's and bought my gas at Cardwell, but find I have pretty much drifted away from that. I wonder if I should recommit to finding whatever few places remain closed on Sundays, and make a point to shop there. I don't know that I've even once been in a Chick-fil-A, but maybe I should go there weekly.
It seems a little amazing that in the Salt Lake Valley, with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints headquartered here, we will now be left without a grocery store closed on Sundays.
I once shopped exclusively at Macey's and bought my gas at Cardwell, but find I have pretty much drifted away from that. I wonder if I should recommit to finding whatever few places remain closed on Sundays, and make a point to shop there. I don't know that I've even once been in a Chick-fil-A, but maybe I should go there weekly.
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
It Seems Pressing that We should Consider New Voting Machines
Utah invited some of its voters to try out various election machines on the market, with an eye toward buying new equipment. Security, the state suggested, is a priority.
I think it wonderful the state is considering security. With the threat our election machinery could be compromised unveiled by the 2016 election, it is probably wise to consider whether new equipment would help.
Why not call up the experts and ask them which company offers the safest machine? I'd call up J. Alex Halderman, the computer scientist who called for the recounts and who was an expert witness before a senate select committee. He has suggested avoiding machines with paperless ballots. He has also suggested having optical scanners. And, he has also suggested that cybersecurity best practices be applied in the design of voting equipment. Why not ask him which, if any, makers are doing this, and which one is doing the best? And, if there are best practices still to be implemented, tell the voting machine makers you are going to wait and buy from a company that will add these best practices.
In light of the 2016 election, it seems rather pressing that the most secure voting machines be used. Every county in the nation should be considering if the equipment currently in use is the best, or whether they should go with different machines.
I think it wonderful the state is considering security. With the threat our election machinery could be compromised unveiled by the 2016 election, it is probably wise to consider whether new equipment would help.
Why not call up the experts and ask them which company offers the safest machine? I'd call up J. Alex Halderman, the computer scientist who called for the recounts and who was an expert witness before a senate select committee. He has suggested avoiding machines with paperless ballots. He has also suggested having optical scanners. And, he has also suggested that cybersecurity best practices be applied in the design of voting equipment. Why not ask him which, if any, makers are doing this, and which one is doing the best? And, if there are best practices still to be implemented, tell the voting machine makers you are going to wait and buy from a company that will add these best practices.
In light of the 2016 election, it seems rather pressing that the most secure voting machines be used. Every county in the nation should be considering if the equipment currently in use is the best, or whether they should go with different machines.
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
Article 1, Section 8 Might not Leave us Far from Where We're at
I wonder tonight if the general welfare clause of the Constitution should be subordinate to the enumeration of powers given the federal government in Article 1, Section 8.
Reading comments from the Founding Fathers, it seems they did intend for it to be this way, did intend the things enumerated to have precedence over the general welfare clause.
And, it causes me to wonder at what type of a government would be left, if powers were kept within what the listing. I read through each item, anticipating that our government would be limited much more than it is. As I progressed through my reading, however, I wondered if most everything the federal government is doing might fit under this umbrella. Maybe, maybe not, depending on how you interpret those things in the listing.
The government should be allowed to only do these things:
1. It should be able to tax in various forms.
2. It should have power to pay its bills.
3. It should be able to provide for the common defense.
4. It should be able to provide for the general welfare.
5. It should keep taxes uniform throughout the United States, which probably means one state or section of the country shall not be imposed greater taxes than another. Or, does it mean graduated income taxes are not allowed? I don't think so, but maybe.
6.It should be allowed to borrow money and run up a debt.
7. It should regulate trade and commerce with other nations and between states.
8. It should establish the rules of naturalizing people as citizens when they came from other countries.
9. It should govern bankruptcies and make the rules on bankruptcies.
10. It should coin money.
11. It should establish which weights and measurements are used.
12. It should set laws and punishments for counterfeiting.
13. It could have a postal service. Does this granting of authority imply that other national utilities and services are appropriate? Does a national health system fit under this?
14. It should provide highways, if that is what is meant by saying it could "post roads."
15. It should promote the progress of science and the arts. Does this extend authority over schools and learning?
16. It should extend patents and copyrights.
17. It should have a court system beneath the Supreme Court.
18. It should define and punish crimes committed internationally. It refers to "Offences against the Law of Nations," which makes me wonder if the Constitution blindly made room for NATO, the United Nations and other such international laws and organizations.
19. It should have power to declare war.
20. It should have officers armed to fight contraband and piracy, and authority to make rules regarding international captures and arrests.
21. It should raise and support armed forces, although there would be no standing armed forces. The duration of any armed force would be limited to two years.
22. It should be allowed to have military posts and sites, and allowed to govern them.
23. It should be allowed to draft and use other measures to raise an armed force.
24. It should be allowed to suppress both insurrections and invasions.
25. It should provide the training, and arming for the military forces.
26. It should not set the rank for officers in command positions, as that should be left to the states.
27. It should be allowed a system of disciplining those in the military, thus our military courts.
28. It should be allowed a district where the federal government is headquartered, thus the District of Columbia. And, it should be the legislative arm for that district.
29. It should have authority to govern all places and sites purchased or transferred from the states for federal use as military sites.
30. It should not have any sites used for the armed forces except those granted to it by the state legislatures. In other words, there shouldn't be a Ft. Douglas unless the Utah Legislature authorizes it.
This is one of the provisions that makes me reflect the most. It doesn't say anything about this applying to all federal lands, but I wonder that if military places need to be acquired from the states, then if we are to have any other federal properties -- national parks and BLM lands and such -- should they not come under the same rule? This might flip me on my head in my opinion on federal lands.
(Last updated and corrected 8/4/17)
Reading comments from the Founding Fathers, it seems they did intend for it to be this way, did intend the things enumerated to have precedence over the general welfare clause.
And, it causes me to wonder at what type of a government would be left, if powers were kept within what the listing. I read through each item, anticipating that our government would be limited much more than it is. As I progressed through my reading, however, I wondered if most everything the federal government is doing might fit under this umbrella. Maybe, maybe not, depending on how you interpret those things in the listing.
The government should be allowed to only do these things:
1. It should be able to tax in various forms.
2. It should have power to pay its bills.
3. It should be able to provide for the common defense.
4. It should be able to provide for the general welfare.
5. It should keep taxes uniform throughout the United States, which probably means one state or section of the country shall not be imposed greater taxes than another. Or, does it mean graduated income taxes are not allowed? I don't think so, but maybe.
6.It should be allowed to borrow money and run up a debt.
7. It should regulate trade and commerce with other nations and between states.
8. It should establish the rules of naturalizing people as citizens when they came from other countries.
9. It should govern bankruptcies and make the rules on bankruptcies.
10. It should coin money.
11. It should establish which weights and measurements are used.
12. It should set laws and punishments for counterfeiting.
13. It could have a postal service. Does this granting of authority imply that other national utilities and services are appropriate? Does a national health system fit under this?
14. It should provide highways, if that is what is meant by saying it could "post roads."
15. It should promote the progress of science and the arts. Does this extend authority over schools and learning?
16. It should extend patents and copyrights.
17. It should have a court system beneath the Supreme Court.
18. It should define and punish crimes committed internationally. It refers to "Offences against the Law of Nations," which makes me wonder if the Constitution blindly made room for NATO, the United Nations and other such international laws and organizations.
19. It should have power to declare war.
20. It should have officers armed to fight contraband and piracy, and authority to make rules regarding international captures and arrests.
21. It should raise and support armed forces, although there would be no standing armed forces. The duration of any armed force would be limited to two years.
22. It should be allowed to have military posts and sites, and allowed to govern them.
23. It should be allowed to draft and use other measures to raise an armed force.
24. It should be allowed to suppress both insurrections and invasions.
25. It should provide the training, and arming for the military forces.
26. It should not set the rank for officers in command positions, as that should be left to the states.
27. It should be allowed a system of disciplining those in the military, thus our military courts.
28. It should be allowed a district where the federal government is headquartered, thus the District of Columbia. And, it should be the legislative arm for that district.
29. It should have authority to govern all places and sites purchased or transferred from the states for federal use as military sites.
30. It should not have any sites used for the armed forces except those granted to it by the state legislatures. In other words, there shouldn't be a Ft. Douglas unless the Utah Legislature authorizes it.
This is one of the provisions that makes me reflect the most. It doesn't say anything about this applying to all federal lands, but I wonder that if military places need to be acquired from the states, then if we are to have any other federal properties -- national parks and BLM lands and such -- should they not come under the same rule? This might flip me on my head in my opinion on federal lands.
(Last updated and corrected 8/4/17)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)