Can I quote from a Steve Winwood song? (I'm going to throw a change-up in for the second line.)
While you see a chance, take it
Find a future -- shake it
Because it's all on you.
The song swirls in my mind as I read a Deseret News headline: "Utah board game lovers unite at state's biggest gaming convention."
More money has been made through conventions and tourism than many imagine. If you can expand on your tourism -- and make it good, clean tourism -- you should.
Now, seems I read in a textbook on how to create tourism that the best trick for starting up a tourism industry is to begin with all the hobbies and games, and interests and pastimes that people have. (Okay, there is no such textbook on how to build tourism, but if there were, perhaps it would say this is the best starting point for sparking a tourism industry.)
Look no further than Comic Con to see that when there are fans, they come running.
If someone is a bird-watcher, and somebody organizes a convention so all bird-watchers can gather to share their adventures with each other -- all while watching birds at one of North America's greatest migratory bird flyways . . .
They might fly all the way across the country to get here.
Now, what if you made it as affordable, accessible, and easy as possible? Convenience sells, you know. There are a million bird-watchers, but some can't afford a $1000 vacation. You'll maximize your tourism if minimize the hassle and expense.
Plant your tourism right next to the airport, within walking distance. Yes, save the best land -- the land closest to the airport -- to cater to Monopoly players, and chess players, and high school choirs, and Revolutionary War hobbyists, and . . .
There are thousands of hobbies, thousands of interests, each with a million people to flock to your city.
Make it so they can fly in, walk over to their convention, and fly out the very same day. Tourism without luggage, vacation without planning. Just get on a plane, fly in, and fly out. No hotel necessary. You don't even need a taxi. Set up free shuttles for venues that might be a little too far to walk to, but make them, also, as accessible and easy-to-get-to as possible.
Move your Greyhound station next door. Relocate your Amtrak there. But, consider that your airport -- your international airport -- is the key to making this work. It is why the land next to the airport has value like none other.
Just what was it that the Steve Winwood song suggested? (The second line being revised.)
While you see a chance, take it
Find a future -- Shake it
Because it's all on you
It is all on us -- on Salt Lake City and Utah. If we want to do this, we can. If we waste the land, then that's on us, too. The land stretches out west as far as the eye can see. We can shoot out a tourism district just a mile or so, or we can keep on going with museums, and amusement parks and softball fields. We can mix in a global trade hub, if we like, but must remember that whatever land we do use for things other than tourism will be lost from tourism forever. Bringing in the hobbyists can open the door to other types of tourism, just as a spark can lead to a fire.
But, the industry can only grow if there's room to grow. The size of your dream is only limited by the size of your frontier. So, we might want to keep the frontier as big as we can.
Friday, March 9, 2018
Thursday, March 8, 2018
Constitution Grants California the Right to Create Sanctuary Cities
If these are the arguments California is making -- if these are the things that state is suggesting -- then it is well within its rights in creating sanctuary cities.
Words have their meanings, and the founding fathers knew what words they were using when they granted the federal government authority to create a path to citizenship so those moving here could be naturalized as equals with those born here.
Should we not assume that if the founders had wanted to grant authority over immigration, they would have used an appropriate word? Could they not have said, "immigration" or "migration," if that is what they wanted to talk about? Instead, they chose the word, "naturalization," and we must assume that is what they were talking about.
Words matter. They have different meanings. To assume they meant meant one word when they used another is a weak argument.
"The Congress shall have Power . . . To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."
Since naturalization does not mean migration, the process of naturalization does not include controlling who shall come to the U.S. Since the founders were talking about rules allowing those from out of country to become equal with those already here, that is what they were talking about.
They were talking about what they were talking about.
Now, since the Tenth Amendment says all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, then if anyone has authority over immigration, it is the states -- and California happens to be one of them.
So, if California chooses to have sanctuary cities, it should be allowed to do so. It is but acting under the authority given it in the Constitution.
Words have their meanings, and the founding fathers knew what words they were using when they granted the federal government authority to create a path to citizenship so those moving here could be naturalized as equals with those born here.
Should we not assume that if the founders had wanted to grant authority over immigration, they would have used an appropriate word? Could they not have said, "immigration" or "migration," if that is what they wanted to talk about? Instead, they chose the word, "naturalization," and we must assume that is what they were talking about.
Words matter. They have different meanings. To assume they meant meant one word when they used another is a weak argument.
"The Congress shall have Power . . . To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."
Since naturalization does not mean migration, the process of naturalization does not include controlling who shall come to the U.S. Since the founders were talking about rules allowing those from out of country to become equal with those already here, that is what they were talking about.
They were talking about what they were talking about.
Now, since the Tenth Amendment says all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, then if anyone has authority over immigration, it is the states -- and California happens to be one of them.
So, if California chooses to have sanctuary cities, it should be allowed to do so. It is but acting under the authority given it in the Constitution.
Wednesday, March 7, 2018
The California Revolution for Immigrants
Hearing of California Gov. Jerry Brown saying U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions is "initiating a reign of terror" against California immigrants, I cannot but feel surprised at the support for immigrants coming out of California.
An old Chris de Burgh song -- "Revolution" -- comes to my mind, long forgotten, till this moment, when it rushes to my memory. I look up the words when I get home from work.
Wake up boys, there's a light at the window
I can hear someone knocking on the door
There are voices in the street
And the sound of running feet
And they whisper the word
'Revolution'
Is California really standing up for the immigrants this strongly? I think back a week or so, when the mayor of Oakland warned the immigrants of her city of an impending federal raid. At the time, I blogged of how it reminded me of Paul Revere warning of the coming of the British.
"This is basically going to war against the state of California, the engine of the American economy," Brown says, in response to Sessions' filing lawsuit against California's attempts to help the immigrants. "It is not wise, it is not right and it will not stand."
So, we have a little bit of a "war." I stand with those who fight for freedom. I stand with those who are standing up against the federal government.
An old Chris de Burgh song -- "Revolution" -- comes to my mind, long forgotten, till this moment, when it rushes to my memory. I look up the words when I get home from work.
Wake up boys, there's a light at the window
I can hear someone knocking on the door
There are voices in the street
And the sound of running feet
And they whisper the word
'Revolution'
Is California really standing up for the immigrants this strongly? I think back a week or so, when the mayor of Oakland warned the immigrants of her city of an impending federal raid. At the time, I blogged of how it reminded me of Paul Revere warning of the coming of the British.
"This is basically going to war against the state of California, the engine of the American economy," Brown says, in response to Sessions' filing lawsuit against California's attempts to help the immigrants. "It is not wise, it is not right and it will not stand."
So, we have a little bit of a "war." I stand with those who fight for freedom. I stand with those who are standing up against the federal government.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
Does the Constitution Infer a Path to Citizenship?
If you would, read the Constitution -- and read it thoughtfully. If you do, you just might question whether it grants any authority to restrict immigration.
Now, here's a thought: If the Constitution doesn't grant such authority, and if government is restricting immigration, anyway, is it government that is being illegal, rather than the immigrant, and should we not then be speaking of Washington as being an "illegal government," instead of speaking of those coming from outside our borders as being "illegal immigrants"?
Well, if you are the government, and you disobey your own constitution, doesn't that make you an "illegal government"?
So, before we take this whole national discussion on immigration any further, it might be worthy to open the Constitution, read it, and consider what it says.
It should be our authority on this matter.
It does talk about naturalization. In Article I, Section 8, in enumerating the powers of Congress, it spells out that the federal government has authority, "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."
So, we should ask: Is "naturalization" the very same thing as "immigration"? Are the terms identical? Are they interchangeable? Or, do they have little different meanings? Does "naturalization" refer only to the process of granting citizenship once people arrive --with no restriction on whether they come? Does the fact that the word "naturalization" is used instead of "immigration" or "migration" suggest that a path to citizenship ought to be guaranteed to all immigrants?
Well, does it?
Naturalization appears to be the process by which those born abroad are granted equal status with those born here. There can be no such naturalization if there isn't a path to citizenship.
For that is what the term is all about.
So, it is we in our day who speak of "a path to citizenship." We coined the term. Back in the day, was a path to citizenship assumed? Was it a given? Did the forefathers take it for granted? To them, was it a foregone conclusion?
To read the Constitution, you must wonder but what it surely was. It certainly seems to. Forsooth, I say, the highest law in the land does appear to be mandating a path to citizenship.
You look at our nation's first laws on naturalization, enacted in the 1790s, and you will see they made no effort to restrict immigration, nor to set rules by which people could come. No, they only established rules by which those already here would be naturalized
They laid out the path to citizenship. That's all.
Now, here's a thought: If the Constitution doesn't grant such authority, and if government is restricting immigration, anyway, is it government that is being illegal, rather than the immigrant, and should we not then be speaking of Washington as being an "illegal government," instead of speaking of those coming from outside our borders as being "illegal immigrants"?
Well, if you are the government, and you disobey your own constitution, doesn't that make you an "illegal government"?
So, before we take this whole national discussion on immigration any further, it might be worthy to open the Constitution, read it, and consider what it says.
It should be our authority on this matter.
It does talk about naturalization. In Article I, Section 8, in enumerating the powers of Congress, it spells out that the federal government has authority, "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."
So, we should ask: Is "naturalization" the very same thing as "immigration"? Are the terms identical? Are they interchangeable? Or, do they have little different meanings? Does "naturalization" refer only to the process of granting citizenship once people arrive --with no restriction on whether they come? Does the fact that the word "naturalization" is used instead of "immigration" or "migration" suggest that a path to citizenship ought to be guaranteed to all immigrants?
Well, does it?
Naturalization appears to be the process by which those born abroad are granted equal status with those born here. There can be no such naturalization if there isn't a path to citizenship.
For that is what the term is all about.
So, it is we in our day who speak of "a path to citizenship." We coined the term. Back in the day, was a path to citizenship assumed? Was it a given? Did the forefathers take it for granted? To them, was it a foregone conclusion?
To read the Constitution, you must wonder but what it surely was. It certainly seems to. Forsooth, I say, the highest law in the land does appear to be mandating a path to citizenship.
You look at our nation's first laws on naturalization, enacted in the 1790s, and you will see they made no effort to restrict immigration, nor to set rules by which people could come. No, they only established rules by which those already here would be naturalized
They laid out the path to citizenship. That's all.
Monday, March 5, 2018
Of the Bill of Rights, and of Making Criminals out of those who aren't
If you study who is protected most under the Bill of Rights, you might want to consider the plight of the immigrant.
Make that, the "illegal" immigrant.
The Founding Fathers clearly were very concerned that people not be falsely accused, nor wrongly jailed, for amendments four through eight are pretty much devoted to protecting those accused of crimes. In total, no less than 14 protections for the accused are scattered through our Bill of Rights.
Surely, the founders wanted to protect against government's making criminals out of those who are not criminals. More than anything, this is what the Bill of Rights is about.
So, consider our undocumented immigrants, and whether they are unjustly rushed into the circle of "criminals." We even call them "illegal" immigrants, which from the start places them in the category of criminals.
But, do they belong there?
Consider: The immigrant becomes illegal for no worse of an act than drifting too far to the north. He commits no more of a crime than breathing American air, and standing on American soil. Well, is that not the full measure of his crime? Is that not the whole of what he is doing wrong? For simply breathing American air and standing on American soil, he is tossed into the circle of criminals.
You forgive me, but I certainly consider it brandishing the criminal label upon him when the criminal label does not belong upon him.
The founders devoted much of the Bill of Rights to safeguarding against government making criminals out of those who are not. I would suggest, when it comes to the immigrant, that is precisely what we are doing: We are making a criminal out of a person who is not.
Make that, the "illegal" immigrant.
The Founding Fathers clearly were very concerned that people not be falsely accused, nor wrongly jailed, for amendments four through eight are pretty much devoted to protecting those accused of crimes. In total, no less than 14 protections for the accused are scattered through our Bill of Rights.
Surely, the founders wanted to protect against government's making criminals out of those who are not criminals. More than anything, this is what the Bill of Rights is about.
So, consider our undocumented immigrants, and whether they are unjustly rushed into the circle of "criminals." We even call them "illegal" immigrants, which from the start places them in the category of criminals.
But, do they belong there?
Consider: The immigrant becomes illegal for no worse of an act than drifting too far to the north. He commits no more of a crime than breathing American air, and standing on American soil. Well, is that not the full measure of his crime? Is that not the whole of what he is doing wrong? For simply breathing American air and standing on American soil, he is tossed into the circle of criminals.
You forgive me, but I certainly consider it brandishing the criminal label upon him when the criminal label does not belong upon him.
The founders devoted much of the Bill of Rights to safeguarding against government making criminals out of those who are not. I would suggest, when it comes to the immigrant, that is precisely what we are doing: We are making a criminal out of a person who is not.
Friday, March 2, 2018
We have the 2nd Amendment for a Reason, You Know, and, This is it.
If the idea of the Second Amendment is to give us weapons to fight off the federal government should it ever come calling to take our freedoms away . . .
If this is what the Second Amendment is all about, then what think you of how this loss of freedom is happening -- all across America -- and no one is even calling for the justice and protection of the Second Amendment.
Do you know of what I speak? No? Then, let me tell you. I speak of a people who hide in the shadows, anxious that the government not find them, worried that the feds will root them out, and arrest them, and toss them in jail, and take their freedoms away.
What do you think? Should we not arm this group of people? Should we not tell them the Second Amendment was written for them, more than for anyone else? Yes, more than for anyone else. After all, what other people are having their liberties assaulted by the federal government? What other people are being rounded up, and hauled off to prison, simply for standing on American soil?
I speak of the immigrants, of course. Specifically, I speak of those our government has labeled "illegal immigrants" and "illegal aliens" -- defining them as criminals for no more reason than existing and breathing and living on American soil.
What do you think? Should we not be encouraging them to go out and get their guns? It is their Second Amendment right, you know.
Looking back on the history of America, I don't think you will find a better example of the federal government coming and looking for a people, rounding them up, stripping them of their freedoms, and hauling them off to jail. You won't find a more exact instance of this: government arresting people just for living on American soil and breathing American air.
So, yes, if the Second Amendment is there to protect against freedoms being taken away, it is there for the immigrants, for it is they, more than anyone, who have their freedoms being taken away. It is they, more than anyone, who have their inalienable rights being assaulted by government.
Isn't this what the Second Amendment is all about? Some would say it is. So, if you are to argue this is what the Second Amendment is all about, do not short the immigrant of its protection.
What is government tyranny, anyway? Isn't it when government is oppressive, and harsh, and unjust? What is more oppressive, and harsh, and unjust, and tyrannical than this? These people are "illegal" for simply being on our streets! You call that justice? I call it tyranny.
If tyranny is when you take away their freedoms simply because you can -- simply because you are the authority, you are the government, and you have the power -- then isn't this tyranny?
You would suppose that since these people were not born here, they have no right to come unless we give them that right. But, consider: If tyranny is when you assert they have no rights because you have not issued them any rights, then isn't this -- of all things -- tyranny? Freedom does not come by government issue; it is inalienable.
So, I say, give them all the guns they need to protect themselves from our government's tyranny. Preach up the Second Amendment. Inform them of their rights. Tell them to be patriots. Let them know that this is America, and that in America, they don't need to succumb to tyranny, they don't need to be herded away like sheep.
We have the Second Amendment for a reason, you know. And, this is it.
If this is what the Second Amendment is all about, then what think you of how this loss of freedom is happening -- all across America -- and no one is even calling for the justice and protection of the Second Amendment.
Do you know of what I speak? No? Then, let me tell you. I speak of a people who hide in the shadows, anxious that the government not find them, worried that the feds will root them out, and arrest them, and toss them in jail, and take their freedoms away.
What do you think? Should we not arm this group of people? Should we not tell them the Second Amendment was written for them, more than for anyone else? Yes, more than for anyone else. After all, what other people are having their liberties assaulted by the federal government? What other people are being rounded up, and hauled off to prison, simply for standing on American soil?
I speak of the immigrants, of course. Specifically, I speak of those our government has labeled "illegal immigrants" and "illegal aliens" -- defining them as criminals for no more reason than existing and breathing and living on American soil.
What do you think? Should we not be encouraging them to go out and get their guns? It is their Second Amendment right, you know.
Looking back on the history of America, I don't think you will find a better example of the federal government coming and looking for a people, rounding them up, stripping them of their freedoms, and hauling them off to jail. You won't find a more exact instance of this: government arresting people just for living on American soil and breathing American air.
So, yes, if the Second Amendment is there to protect against freedoms being taken away, it is there for the immigrants, for it is they, more than anyone, who have their freedoms being taken away. It is they, more than anyone, who have their inalienable rights being assaulted by government.
Isn't this what the Second Amendment is all about? Some would say it is. So, if you are to argue this is what the Second Amendment is all about, do not short the immigrant of its protection.
What is government tyranny, anyway? Isn't it when government is oppressive, and harsh, and unjust? What is more oppressive, and harsh, and unjust, and tyrannical than this? These people are "illegal" for simply being on our streets! You call that justice? I call it tyranny.
If tyranny is when you take away their freedoms simply because you can -- simply because you are the authority, you are the government, and you have the power -- then isn't this tyranny?
You would suppose that since these people were not born here, they have no right to come unless we give them that right. But, consider: If tyranny is when you assert they have no rights because you have not issued them any rights, then isn't this -- of all things -- tyranny? Freedom does not come by government issue; it is inalienable.
So, I say, give them all the guns they need to protect themselves from our government's tyranny. Preach up the Second Amendment. Inform them of their rights. Tell them to be patriots. Let them know that this is America, and that in America, they don't need to succumb to tyranny, they don't need to be herded away like sheep.
We have the Second Amendment for a reason, you know. And, this is it.
Thursday, March 1, 2018
911 would Reach the Nearest Gun Holder
To save our country -- to prevent mass murders and school shootings -- some suggest we arm as many as possible. They suggest that if every place is saturated with weapons, regardless where a live-shooter shows up, there will be a gun to neutralize him.
Law enforcement by the body of the public, then. Instead of relying on police, let the general populace do the work.
But, I think we should point out that what is being advocated does differ from how we traditionally respond to crime. Is our defense against bank robbers the general public? Do we rely on concealed weapon holders, or open-carry weapon holders, to respond to bank robberies, or thefts or whatever other crime there is?
I mean, if this is the formula for fighting mass shootings, should it be the same defense system we use against all our crimes?
After all, you could organize it well beyond what it is. When a 911 call came in, it could ring through to a ready network of gun-holders, with which ever of them closest to the crime responding.
Who needs a police force? Your public is your police force. 911 reaches the nearest gun-holder.
Law enforcement by vigilante force.
Now, make no mistake: I am not advocating such a system. I am only suggesting that if we took what many gun advocates are recommending as an answer to mass shootings, and if we applied it to the whole of our response against crime, this is what it would look like.
Law enforcement by the body of the public, then. Instead of relying on police, let the general populace do the work.
But, I think we should point out that what is being advocated does differ from how we traditionally respond to crime. Is our defense against bank robbers the general public? Do we rely on concealed weapon holders, or open-carry weapon holders, to respond to bank robberies, or thefts or whatever other crime there is?
I mean, if this is the formula for fighting mass shootings, should it be the same defense system we use against all our crimes?
After all, you could organize it well beyond what it is. When a 911 call came in, it could ring through to a ready network of gun-holders, with which ever of them closest to the crime responding.
Who needs a police force? Your public is your police force. 911 reaches the nearest gun-holder.
Law enforcement by vigilante force.
Now, make no mistake: I am not advocating such a system. I am only suggesting that if we took what many gun advocates are recommending as an answer to mass shootings, and if we applied it to the whole of our response against crime, this is what it would look like.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)