By one measurement, Colin Kaepernick was one of the best quarterbacks of all time. His touchdowns-to-interceptions ratio was the fourth best in NFL history. Collusion? Definitely. Blackballed? Spell that in capital letters.
He was a Super Bowl quarterback in 2013, and led his team back in that game, although they came up short.
Alas, it is argued he was washed up. No team signed him because he wasn't good enough to play on any team when his contract ended at the conclusion of the 2016 season. So, they say. Was he? Was he washed up? His passer efficiency rating was 90.7 that year, ranking him 17th out of 30 quarterbacks. That's pretty much middle of the pack. Are the 13 quarterbacks who finished below him also to be considered washed up? He tossed 16 touchdowns compared to only 4 interceptions in this year he was "washed up." Glossy statistics don't come to washed up quarterbacks.
When he was benched that year, Blaine Gabbert came in. His passing efficiency rating was 68.4. That's a significant drop off. Clearly, the Niners were better when Kaepernick was on the field.
It is said the court case settlement with the NFL gives Kaepernick perhaps more than $10 million. Perhaps, just as importantly, both sides can now move on. I wonder if part of the reason he signed the agreement was to get something out of the court case while still being able to take a contract in the Alliance of American Football, the new league with a team in Salt Lake City. The league lacks star power. Kaepernick could provide that. The league's owners are said to be smart, and you have to wonder if they have attempted to lure him. I'm just joking here, but I'm going to call the Salt Lake Stallions and ask them to sign him. I might even go to a game, just to be supporting Kap.
Friday, February 15, 2019
It is not the Executive Order, but the Deportations that I Wonder about
We should be careful what we put in the Constitution, lest something like this sneaks in, and we obliged to give "illegal" immigrants all the same rights and privileges as everyone else:
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"any person within its jurisdiction" includes the undocumented. Does the law -- the highest law of our land, -- then, not grant equality to them? They are to have the same protections as the rest of us, and that would include the right to live here and the right to not be deported.
The question should not be whether an executive order to fence them out is unconstitutional, but whether deporting them out once they get in is unconstitutional.
In addition to the part of the Fourteenth Amendment quoted above, the first part of that amendment is also pertinent. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." Go back and learn what was done (and not done) at the time to naturalize those who came to America.
Should we grant the undocumented citizenship? I believe we should consider whether the Constitution already does.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
In addition to the part of the Fourteenth Amendment quoted above, the first part of that amendment is also pertinent. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." Go back and learn what was done (and not done) at the time to naturalize those who came to America.
Should we grant the undocumented citizenship? I believe we should consider whether the Constitution already does.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Thursday, February 14, 2019
From the Meme, My Mind Turns to the Scriptures
Written by Leo d'Entremont, there is a meme noting slavery was legal, while helping people escape slavery was not, and noting that smuggling Jewish people out of Germany was not legal. I guess as I thought on this meme, the story came to mind of how Christ healed the man with the withered hand on the sabbath, which they felt was against the law. And when Jesus perceived this, he said, "Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill?"
These are the poor, the immigrants. Many of them remain outside our borders because we refuse to let them in. Many of those fleeing from violence do not make it, because we refuse them. We should ask, do we make it illegal to good? Is it illegal to save them from possibly being killed in their home countries? Do we make it illegal to do good? We think of the day when there were Sadducees, We must wonder, though, if we have learned from those days. Or, from the days of Isaiah. What of those verses in Isaiah 10?
"Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness, which they have prescribed: To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take way the right from the poor of my people." That passage was incorporated in the Book of Mormon, in 2 Nephi 20. We know many of Isaiah's words placed in the Book of Mormon were placed there for us in these latter days living in America. I only know this: that I cannot look at those verses, and look around me on all that is happening, and find anything that looks more like a fulfillment than how we are treating the undocumented immigrants.
I think of the story of the good Samaritan, and of how the priest and the Levite would not help the person travelling the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, but he, a Samaritan, would. I think of this day, and of how many of my faith turn away these poor, and of how those some who call themselves atheists do not, but are willing to administer care to them. Who are the priests and Levites in this modern-day story, and who are the Samaritans? And, I wonder if the story were to play out in our day, if we would look at that man travelling the road to Jericho, and tell him he must first show his papers before we would help him.
These are the poor, the immigrants. Many of them remain outside our borders because we refuse to let them in. Many of those fleeing from violence do not make it, because we refuse them. We should ask, do we make it illegal to good? Is it illegal to save them from possibly being killed in their home countries? Do we make it illegal to do good? We think of the day when there were Sadducees, We must wonder, though, if we have learned from those days. Or, from the days of Isaiah. What of those verses in Isaiah 10?
"Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness, which they have prescribed: To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take way the right from the poor of my people." That passage was incorporated in the Book of Mormon, in 2 Nephi 20. We know many of Isaiah's words placed in the Book of Mormon were placed there for us in these latter days living in America. I only know this: that I cannot look at those verses, and look around me on all that is happening, and find anything that looks more like a fulfillment than how we are treating the undocumented immigrants.
I think of the story of the good Samaritan, and of how the priest and the Levite would not help the person travelling the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, but he, a Samaritan, would. I think of this day, and of how many of my faith turn away these poor, and of how those some who call themselves atheists do not, but are willing to administer care to them. Who are the priests and Levites in this modern-day story, and who are the Samaritans? And, I wonder if the story were to play out in our day, if we would look at that man travelling the road to Jericho, and tell him he must first show his papers before we would help him.
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
With the Second Amendment, We Lack Courage to do what is right
Seriously, now: In Utah, are they considering coming after your guns? Taking them away? Is this the day you have rued, the day in which they confiscate that which the Second Amendment gives you?
For it is a slippery slope, they say. You take guns from one person, and the next thing you know, guns are taken from everyone. Big Brother snatched them away.
And, we have legislation like this in Utah? In Utah?!
HB209, sponsored by Rep. Stephen Handy, would take guns from -- among others -- those who show a pattern of threats, and from those who violate protective orders. If it can be shown you pose a risk to yourself or to others, the gun will be taken from you.
Now, let me pause to say I can see the wisdom of not letting everyone have guns. It seems obvious, to me. Do we need a few more shooting like that at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High to convince us that some people just shouldn't be running around with guns? How many shootings must the nation endure before it wakes up and says, Stop the bloodshed, stop the carnage -- take the guns from those who shouldn't have them.
Hey, even the National Rifle Association agrees some red flag legislation is in order. Red flag laws suggest that when good warning exists, the gun should be taken away.
And, this from the NRA? I'm a little surprised. Now, I understand the NRA does not want prior restraint rights violated. And, I'm guessing they have limits on what things they agree are suitable reasons for taking the gun, in the first place.
But, the NRA?
And, I don't know if this is true, but I have read the ACLU has -- at least somewhere and in some fashion -- came out against red flag laws.
What a flip. The NRA and ACLU trading places. The world turning upside down.
What next -- the literal fulfillment of your fears that the government will come after your guns?
I think on HB209, and of how someone who violates a domestic protective order might have their guns taken away. Say you have a leading gun rights activist, and he gets a divorce, and his wife receives a protective order, and he makes a visit, anyway . . .
Away with his guns! It could be said, if they can take guns from someone who has vowed they will have to pry them from his cold, dead fingers, then they can take them from anyone.
I consider whether I favor a red flag law such as HB209. I conclude, I do. I can see the wisdom in it. I do, of a certain, see how it is not wise to let guns fall into the hands of those who cripple society by firing into crowds.
But, what of the First Amendment? I wonder at how we bring the argument to a swift and screeching conclusion as soon as the First Amendment is mentioned. No guns equals no Constitution, for you cannot have one without the other.
So they would tell you.
And, I agree, we should not spurn our Constitution, nor its values.
But, we must also consider on what is wise. Is it true the threat of mass killings would hang over us less if we enacted good red flag laws? Would suicides diminish? Evidence says they would.
If wisdom is that we are better off if guns are taken from some, we should find a path to get there.
Freedom will not be lost. The Second Amendment was established because those who became soldiers back then brought their own guns. If you took them away, you ended the right of the nation to raise an army to defend itself.
Still, the wording is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If you infringe on that right, it is argued, you infringe on the Constitution.
My thought is, we lack the moral conviction to do what is necessary and what is right. If we can see society will be safer if we take guns from those who shouldn't have them, and if we then draw back because we can't square this with the Constitution . . .
Something's got to give.
So, reword the Second Amendment, if you have the courage. Don't do away with it. Don't abolish it. Don't toss it aside.
Just reword it to allow for what needs to be done. Take guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
If something is wise, you do it. If you do not, you lack what it takes to take the path of wisdom. More, you lack the courage to do what is right. If wisdom says do it, you do it. If society will be safer if some people don't have guns, you take them away. Let me ask you, if you saw someone about to shoot into a crowd, and you wrestled the gun away from him, wouldn't that be the right thing to do?
Take the gun away.
It takes great courage to jump a gunman, to wrestle the gun from him. And, so it is with us: It will take courage to take guns from those who shouldn't have them.
After all I've said above, about having the courage to add words to the Second Amendment, if that is what it takes, I'm not all sure that is necessary. The Constitution doesn't just say the right to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed upon. It says that because a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state, that is why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
Back then, the soldier brought his own weapon. If you didn't provide that you weren't going to allow government to take guns away, that same government was going to be in a mess when it came time to go to war.
Today, soldiers' guns are government issue. The war can still be fought even if the soldier doesn't bring his own gun.
Perhaps, you would argue we must have the right to own guns so we can fight the government should it ever convert to an authoritative government. Well, then, ask yourself if taking guns from those who shouldn't have them is going to prevent us, as a whole, from having private weapons to stand up against the government.
I'm thinking no.
(Blog changed and added to 2/14/19)
For it is a slippery slope, they say. You take guns from one person, and the next thing you know, guns are taken from everyone. Big Brother snatched them away.
And, we have legislation like this in Utah? In Utah?!
HB209, sponsored by Rep. Stephen Handy, would take guns from -- among others -- those who show a pattern of threats, and from those who violate protective orders. If it can be shown you pose a risk to yourself or to others, the gun will be taken from you.
Now, let me pause to say I can see the wisdom of not letting everyone have guns. It seems obvious, to me. Do we need a few more shooting like that at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High to convince us that some people just shouldn't be running around with guns? How many shootings must the nation endure before it wakes up and says, Stop the bloodshed, stop the carnage -- take the guns from those who shouldn't have them.
Hey, even the National Rifle Association agrees some red flag legislation is in order. Red flag laws suggest that when good warning exists, the gun should be taken away.
And, this from the NRA? I'm a little surprised. Now, I understand the NRA does not want prior restraint rights violated. And, I'm guessing they have limits on what things they agree are suitable reasons for taking the gun, in the first place.
But, the NRA?
And, I don't know if this is true, but I have read the ACLU has -- at least somewhere and in some fashion -- came out against red flag laws.
What a flip. The NRA and ACLU trading places. The world turning upside down.
What next -- the literal fulfillment of your fears that the government will come after your guns?
I think on HB209, and of how someone who violates a domestic protective order might have their guns taken away. Say you have a leading gun rights activist, and he gets a divorce, and his wife receives a protective order, and he makes a visit, anyway . . .
Away with his guns! It could be said, if they can take guns from someone who has vowed they will have to pry them from his cold, dead fingers, then they can take them from anyone.
I consider whether I favor a red flag law such as HB209. I conclude, I do. I can see the wisdom in it. I do, of a certain, see how it is not wise to let guns fall into the hands of those who cripple society by firing into crowds.
But, what of the First Amendment? I wonder at how we bring the argument to a swift and screeching conclusion as soon as the First Amendment is mentioned. No guns equals no Constitution, for you cannot have one without the other.
So they would tell you.
And, I agree, we should not spurn our Constitution, nor its values.
But, we must also consider on what is wise. Is it true the threat of mass killings would hang over us less if we enacted good red flag laws? Would suicides diminish? Evidence says they would.
If wisdom is that we are better off if guns are taken from some, we should find a path to get there.
Freedom will not be lost. The Second Amendment was established because those who became soldiers back then brought their own guns. If you took them away, you ended the right of the nation to raise an army to defend itself.
Still, the wording is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If you infringe on that right, it is argued, you infringe on the Constitution.
My thought is, we lack the moral conviction to do what is necessary and what is right. If we can see society will be safer if we take guns from those who shouldn't have them, and if we then draw back because we can't square this with the Constitution . . .
Something's got to give.
So, reword the Second Amendment, if you have the courage. Don't do away with it. Don't abolish it. Don't toss it aside.
Just reword it to allow for what needs to be done. Take guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
If something is wise, you do it. If you do not, you lack what it takes to take the path of wisdom. More, you lack the courage to do what is right. If wisdom says do it, you do it. If society will be safer if some people don't have guns, you take them away. Let me ask you, if you saw someone about to shoot into a crowd, and you wrestled the gun away from him, wouldn't that be the right thing to do?
Take the gun away.
It takes great courage to jump a gunman, to wrestle the gun from him. And, so it is with us: It will take courage to take guns from those who shouldn't have them.
After all I've said above, about having the courage to add words to the Second Amendment, if that is what it takes, I'm not all sure that is necessary. The Constitution doesn't just say the right to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed upon. It says that because a well-regulated militia is necessary for a free state, that is why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
Back then, the soldier brought his own weapon. If you didn't provide that you weren't going to allow government to take guns away, that same government was going to be in a mess when it came time to go to war.
Today, soldiers' guns are government issue. The war can still be fought even if the soldier doesn't bring his own gun.
Perhaps, you would argue we must have the right to own guns so we can fight the government should it ever convert to an authoritative government. Well, then, ask yourself if taking guns from those who shouldn't have them is going to prevent us, as a whole, from having private weapons to stand up against the government.
I'm thinking no.
(Blog changed and added to 2/14/19)
Monday, February 11, 2019
Sunday, February 10, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)