There are Other Forms of Slavery

    Slavery? There are other forms than that which we fought over in the Civil War. Anytime one person displays dominion over another, that is slavery. Yes, communist countries practice it. But, we should not think we, in America, are free from using our power and position over others.

    I speak of some of us, not all of us. Leaders are most susceptible to practicing this form of slavery. They use their position to get their subordinates to do things, to require them to do them in order to remain in good standing with them. Spouses are also guilty of this offense, controlling their partners. We call them control freaks and sometimes suppose it is not such a bad thing. But, being overbearing of another person can cause great damage. When one partner is subjected to doing what the other requires, this becomes a form of slavery. 

   When a leader manipulates the lives of followers, that, too, is wrong. Sometimes the leader uses his or her position to hold followers down in their positions in life. Sometimes, the leader makes unwarranted accusations against the follower, reducing their esteem among the whole group. There are many ways leaders can practice unrighteous dominion, and they amount to a form of slavery.

   A teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that it is the nature and disposition of almost all people, as soon as they get a little authority over others, to begin to exercise dominion over them. That statement suggests almost all leaders have a tendency to do this. We should look at ourselves, then, and see if we are practicing unrighteous dominion -- a manner of slavery -- over those we are charged to care for. 

'Continuance in Office' Means While They are in Office -- That's all.

    A website titled uscourts.gov speaks of the Supreme Court Judges, the appeals courts judges and district court judges, saying they are appointed for life -- per the U.S. Constitution. But, search the Constitution and you won't find that.

   Now, I don't know, but uscourts.gov sounds like a government website -- an official website. It says, "Article III of the Constitution states that these judicial officers are appointed for a life term." But, it isn't there. It isn't in Article III.

   Section 1 of Article III does say this: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." Has "Continuance in Office" been interpreted to mean for life -- because it's just not there. Continuance in Office means while they are in office, that's all. 

The Tulsa Race Massacre and the Cover-up that Followed

    Scott Ellsworth would come to write a book on this. But, back then, growing up in Tulsa Oklahoma, it was hid from his eyes and from his ears -- and from the eyes and ears of most everyone growing up in the city.

   No memorial anywhere in town marked the 1921 massacre. Teachers in school made no mention of it, even when discussing local history. And, if it wasn't being discussed even in Tulsa, where it happened, you know it was being covered up all across America.   

   Ellsworth told the online publication Insider the Tulsa Race Massacre stands as "one of the biggest skeletons" in American history. "There was a concerted effort to absolutely bury and suppress this history. Official records disappeared, never to be seen again," Ellsworth told Insider. "Individuals who tried to study this as late as the early 1970s had their lives and their jobs threatened. Tulsa's white daily newspapers went way out their way not to ever mention it for 50 years. It was just a taboo subject."

    Perhaps as many as 300 were killed. A white mob rioted in a community known as "Black Wall Street," because it was so successful that in a small way, it mirrored New York's Wall Street. That grated at some of the White people, and thus they burned the area down. 

    An air assault brought rifle fire and firebombs from above. The Greenwood, Oklahoma, community had been the wealthiest Black community in all of America, but was reduced to shambles. 

   What of this dark moment in American history? Have you, as a reader, ever heard of it? 

These are Two of the Things We Should be Careful How We Teach

    It is said these two things are taught in Critical Race Theory classes. I do not know that that is true -- I'm guessing in some classes, it probably is true -- but I have reservations about how we do include these teachings in our race diversity instruction. The two things taught:

   1. Here are ways you can reject your White privilege. 

   I believe in "White privilege." It does exist. There are times a White person will get away with things that a Black person does not. There are times when Whites are given privileges Blacks are not. I believe, though, the instruction should also include notice that in many situations, with many people, there is no such thing as White privilege. Some people are very fair and even in the way they treat Black people. In addition, there will be times White people are protective of Black people to the point they might do favors for them. I am not saying that is wrong, but it should be pointed out. Sometimes, someone who is defensive of Black people might give them scholarships, etc., based on their color. That is not wrong. It is nice to do good. But, it should be pointed out in the diversity training. 

   2. Don't get defensive when a person of color tells you your words, tone and behavior are racist, oppressive and triggering. 

   There are times White people's words, tone and behavior are racist, oppressive and triggering. We do need to be introspective enough to take those moments and consider whether the person of color is correct. And, if we are displaying words, tone and behavior that are offensive, we need to own up and correct our ways. But, people of color should be taught not to overjudge. They should not be given license to call things racist that are not racist. When a person is given carte blanche permission to judge another person, there are going to be wrongful judgements.

    

Let Trump and Fact-Checkers Both Have Their Free Speech

    Donald Trump's shutting down his website should serve to help us understand how irreplaceable social the media platforms Twitter and Facebook are -- and why everyone should have access to them and not be blocked from participating. 

   Trump's website was reportedly drawing less than 2,000 reads on some days, way, way down from how many reads his Twitter posts once had. In America, if you need electricity, you use the utility provided. It is a private company, but they never block anyone from participating. Twitter and Facebook have become so vital to the distribution of free speech that they are, in essence, public utilities, and people should not be blocked from participating.

   Yes, flag the inaccurate stories. Provide fact-checking links. But, do not silence free speech by banning President Trump or anyone else. Let Trump and everyone else have the full benefits of free speech. 

   And, speaking of fact-checkers, they, too, should enjoy free speech. There are many who would do away with them. That, too, is wrong. Nobody's voice should be silenced, and that include the voices of the fact-checkers.

    

Why Shut Down Donald Trump's Website?

 (Note added 6/3/21: Hurry-up blogs can be a mistake. This one I wrote without reading the story. As it turns out, Trump shut down his own website.)

 T   I don't have time to so much as read the story, but headlines are saying former President Trump's website has been shut down. I do not like this. There are two things about it that I find disheartening.

   (1.) Free speech is at stake. Donald Trump should have the right to say what he will.

    (2.) It gives him ammunition. He can point to the injustice being done to him and come off looking like the good guy. For all I know he will have just cause to file a lawsuit. 

These Powers would be Safer if Out of the Reach of Politicians

    I'd say I was wrong. I wrote:

   "One of the beauties of the Constitution is its separation of powers. You have an executive branch, legislative branch and judicial branch. The system starts to breakdown, however, if one branch starts reaching into the other. So, let's say the legislative branch decided it wanted to investigate Jan. 6 or Benghazi. Let's say they decided there was a need to appoint a commission to get to the bottom of things. Is this not the legislative branch stepping into the work of the judicial branch? It's the legislative branch saying, Hey, you won't cover all the angles, so we've got to. . . .

   "These commissions are looking for crimes, same as the Department of Justice. Let the DOJ do its job. When you start letting the legislative branch do the work the judicial branch was intended to do, you bleed politics into justice. That's not a good idea. Justice cannot be carried out when politicians are attempting to influence the outcome." 

   I was right about the commissions trying to take over the work that should be done by the DOJ. Do let the DOJ do its job. But the Constitution does not specify that investigations are to be done by the judicial branch, nor does it suggest the DOJ should be administered by the judicial branch. Yes, it might be good if that were the case, to ensure separation of powers, but it isn't in the Constitution. 

   Forgive, but I think it would be an improvement. I think you do want separation of powers. I look at how President Trump tried to weld his power over the courts and judicial system and see it as very dangerous that we do not have more separation of powers. I think of the time he said something to the effect that he was the chief judicial officer in America. Make the lines clear and distinct. Do not leave room for a politician to reach in and grab authority in the judicial system.