Mike Lee & Social Security

This will, in all probability, be my shortest post on record. Mike Lee, a.k.a. "shortsell Lee" Utah's "Senior Senator" (by virtue of the sad fact he is still in office) vowed in 2010, when he was running for the U.S. Senate 

"to phase out Social Security, pull it up by it's roots, and get rid of it." 

Why, in the name of all that is fair and just, honest and unselfish, virtuous and moral, did the citizens of Utah elect him? 

And why is he still in office? 

I know, being a Republican in Utah is a great advantage, but really, people.

Thanks for reading, your comments are always welcome and appreciated. Just click the word "comments" in the white box below. 

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

Read Any Good Books Lately?

 I owe an apology to my long-time readers for not creating this article earlier; it has been brewing (fermenting?) for some time. I will not apologize, however, if I upset your particular apple cart with this subject. 

Education, theoretically universally available to all American children, has long been valued as an integral part of the American Ideals; Thomas Jefferson (yes, that Founding Father) thought so highly of education he used his own money as a seed for the University of Virginia. The United States of America was the first country in the world to promote free education through 12th grade. Policies and discussions, sometimes of a very violent nature, have lead to the change and improvement of our system of education over the last 245 years. No one, of any rational thinking mind, can doubt the value of  compulsory K-12 education, or the benefits it has bestowed upon our democracy in general. 

The processes of education allow us to expand our minds, to open our thoughts to ideas outside the current local experience our childhood provides. Teachers, purveyors of wisdom and practice, have for generations waved away cobwebs of myth and illusion; instilling in students far and wide the need of, and appreciation for thought, study, and the practical application of knowledge. From the study of geometry and physics, we put a man on the moon; from literature and history, we learned of the great achievements and colossal failures of past generations. Without literature, history becomes statistics; as valuable as statistics are, they do not create passion in the hearts and minds of men.

It is consequently appalling to me when the desire of some citizens to ban "certain" books from libraries and reading lists becomes commonplace. I will be the first to agree that some subjects of common discourse today are uncomfortable for many; that is the first argument I think of for NOT banning books such as "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" and "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer." The vernacular, settings, and themes of books such as these are not of today, it is critical to remember these were the words and scenes of Samuel Clemens' time. A study of this historical literature provides ample opportunity to open discussion among students and parents regarding the realities of life in America at certain points in its past; as well as valuable discussion on our country's future potential. 

In the Canyon School District in Utah, nine books are currently "under review"  and have been removed from the libraries in the high schools until the review is complete; none are part of the required reading curriculum. The nine are: "The Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison; "Gender Queer" by Maia Kobabe; "Beyond Magenta" by Susan Kuklin; "l8r,g8r" by Lauren Myracle; "Lawn Boy" by Jonathan Evison: "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabokov; "Monday's Not Coming" by Tiffany Jackson; "The Opposite of Innocent" by Sonya Sones; and "Out of Darkness" by Ashley Hope Perez. (I admit, I have not read all of these books.)  It's not hard to understand why the subject matter of these books makes some people uneasy; sex, race, sexual and racial orientation are not comfortable subjects for most adults. The availability of these books to high-school age students should be of unquestioned value: at worst, the books may encourage conversation between the parents and the teenagers; at best, the books may help students understand themselves, and others, better. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and slap down a common argument: reading a book about homosexual relationships will not make a person change their sexual identification.    

Banning books does not change the historical or social value of a book or a philosophy; rather it displays the ignorance and fear of the banner. It is human nature to fear the unknown; to want to reach back into our comfort zone. Rather than fear these books, and the ideas they contain, perhaps a better use of our time would be to read them and reach into ourselves, to lift up our fear, hold it to daylight, and let the light of reality and reason displace fear. 

Or, if you failed to learn from history, you could go to a meeting of like-minded people, light your torches and march to the library; when you get there, break down the door and burn the offending books on the street. 

Let me know how that works out for you. 

Thank you for reading, as always, your thoughts and comments are welcome. 

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

   

Ten Hot Summer Days

Ten hot summer days. In that space of time, 34 people were killed in mass shootings, and another 63 were injured. The alleged (?) shooters were white males, between the ages of 19 and 24. Two of the shooters are dead, the third is in jail. Although different guns were used, they all were high-capacity "assault rifles," and all were purchased "legally;" however, there is some evidence they may have been illegally transported across state lines. We may never know if the three gunmen knew each other, though some evidence suggests the killer in the El Paso murders may have been influenced by the Dayton shooting. Certainly, we will never positively know what factors drove the Dayton and Gilroy shooters to commit their crimes, as they are dead; but we may gain some insight into the thought patterns of the El Paso killer; he is still alive.

None of the above facts will bring back the 34 victims of these killers, nor will they erase the images captured in the minds of those wounded or who witnessed the shootings. And none of the above facts will do anything to stop the carnage that seems to be overwhelming our country.

There are things that can be done to reduce the risk of these types of mass murders re-occurring, and while they are small steps, they may be a beginning to some solutions. I'd like to express my thoughts on some of those ideas. You may say, after reading this, these ideas won't work, and I agree they will not solve all the problem. But, what we have been doing so far certainly hasn't worked very well, has it? It's time for some critical thinking.

The first, and perhaps the easiest one to implement, is to require national registration at the time of purchase or transfer of any and all firearms. This includes sales at gun shows, pawn shops, and sales by private individuals, including collectors. Believe it or not, only six states and the District of Columbia currently require firearm registration; and not all firearm types need to be registered, even in those states. Currently, seven states completely prohibit the registration of firearms. The other 37 states neither require or prohibit registration. This legislation should also include an insurance clause; that is, you must be able to prove liability insurance for the firearm. The legal age to purchase any firearm should be the same in all 50 states, and the District of Columbia. This does not mean that young Sally and Johnny cannot learn how to handle a firearm, or hunt; it just means they cannot purchase or own a gun.

I said this idea would be easy to implement, but the "Firearms Owners' Protection Act" of 1986 prohibits a national registry. So, this portion of the Reagan-era law would have to be overturned.

Some say this is the first step toward confiscation of privately owned firearms. Get real, people. You are required to register and insure your vehicles, which are also capable of killing and wounding people. It's not that different after all.

The three shootings under discussion meet the federal description of domestic terrorism, to wit: they are a)"dangerous to human life"; b) intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population;" or c) influence government by "intimidation or coercion" or "mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." While federal law defines domestic terrorism, it does not make it a federal crime to commit acts of domestic terrorism. Wait a minute, we have a law defining acts of domestic terrorism, but no federal penalty for committing such acts? Yep, you got it. The FBI can become involved to assist state agencies, but the individuals responsible for these acts can only be prosecuted under state laws. Why does this matter? First, the FBI does not have to get involved in cases of this type, although I understand they are involved in these three. Second, the FBI can look beyond state borders at the relationship these types of criminals may have with other like-minded individuals, and bring charges where appropriate. Third, if domestic terrorism is a crime under federal law, stiffer penalties are a distinct possibility.

The second thought I propose then, is to pass a law making domestic terrorism a federal crime. Congress, can you stop pointing fingers at each other long enough to get this done?

Third, and this thought strikes very close to home for all of us: every person in America should demand of our elected officials that they do not denigrate populations of social backgrounds, wealth, country of origin, race, or sex as a whole. That is to say: Our President, and other elected officials, should never say or imply that all people from Pluto are murderers, rapists, or thieves; or that those with green skin are low-lifes, losers, or pathetic. This type of speech is antithetical to American ideals.

Besides, speech of this nature makes simple-minded people self-righteous, and then they do bad things. Very bad things, which can affect all of us in ways we cannot fathom.

Thank you for reading; as always, your comments are welcome.

R.M. "Bob" Hartman

Data on firearm registration taken from https://ballotpedia.org/Firearm_registration_requirements_by_state

Retrieved August 6, 2019; it is "as of Jan 1, 2019"

USA PATRIOT ACT, 2001