Category: General

The bizarre antics of  Shia LaBeouf continue. He has moved his “performance art” Trump protest to Albuquerque, NM. This protest consists of the words “He will not divide us” on a wall above a camera and microphone. People are supposed to read the words into the microphone while looking at the camera.

First off, isn’t this activity divisive, too? Why not instead chant “We will help him understand our view”? Secondly, why are we choosing to do as Shia asks, given his strange behavior lately? (Do a Google search and see for yourself.)

I’d tell you what I would say to his camera if I were in Albuquerque, NM, but I don’t want to attract the  attention of someone who – while I appreciate their acting skills – seems to me to be a bit out of their mind.

While many cities are seeking to lose their “sanctuary city” designation, others are steadfastly sticking to their metaphorical guns. Vic DeLuca, the mayor of Maplewood, N.J. (which has declared itself a sanctuary city), claims that the term “sanctuary city” has been distorted by Trump. Says DeLuca:

“He’s used it for his own benefit, to say that if you’re a sanctuary city you’re shielding criminals, you’re harboring fugitives.”

But they are criminals, Vic. And you are harboring fugitives. 8 U.S. Code § 1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii) defines a crime as:

…knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

By not turning arrested illegal aliens over to immigration one could argue that you are harboring them while they are in your custody. Alternatively, by releasing them without honoring an immigration detainer (or even bothering to forwarding their locations to ICE) one could argue that you are acting to conceal or shield them from detection.

America is a nation of immigrants; however, they are legal immigrants. The removal of illegal immigrants is not a statement against immigrants, but rather an acknowledgement of those who obey our laws and follow our immigration process. The portrayal by “sanctuary cities” of the crackdown on illegal aliens as an attack on immigrants is inflammatory rhetoric meant to mislead the public. Don’t fall for it.

Republicans are trying to block a Washington, D.C. law allowing assisted suicides. From Fox News:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, which voted to block D.C.’s assisted-suicide policy, told The Washington Post his opposition stems from “deep personal, moral conviction” and said he’s worried the law “will create a marketplace for death.”

I understand Representative Chaffetz’ desire to follow his own moral convictions, but he is not free to hoist them on me. My end-of-life decisions are none of his business.

I would urge the congressman and his cohorts to not block this law. He can still follow his moral conviction by not partaking in assisted suicide, while leaving everyone else free to follow their own convictions.

Per this NPR article, gun control should be treated as a public health crisis and investigated as such by the relevant government agency. The authors of the article blame the lack of such studies on a 1996 congressional appropriations bill that banned the CDC from gun-related research. The apparent fear among some lawmakers that lead to this ban is that the CDC would not investigate the cause of violence that results in firearms use, but would instead rubber-stamp anti-gun rhetoric. The result: a state-sanctioned attack on law-abiding gun owners and the second amendment.

The concern for an attack on guns by a government agency is not too far fetched. Given the current bias of the press, a political entity could hardly be blamed for succumbing to their pressure. As an example of this bias one only has to look as far as the the NPR article cited above, which begins with a common misrepresentation of gun violence:

Every year in the U.S., more than 30,000 people die from things related to guns.

Doesn’t that sound like 30,000 homicides are committed each year? However, that is not the case – typically 2/3’s of these annual gun deaths are suicides, not homicides.  Rather than blaming guns, why don’t we investigate the reasons people seek to commit suicide instead? Wouldn’t that be a much better use of our time and energy? The alternative – attacking guns – is like banning cars to prevent drunk driving; it simply won’t solve the real problem.

For the non-suicide, violence-related gun deaths we could use a similar approach, addressing the violence rather than the method of violence used. Remember, it’s not really gun violence – it’s just violence; the gun is only a tool. Eliminate the guns and the violence will still exist; eliminate the violence, however, and gun violence becomes moot.

I agree that violence – in whatever form it arrives – does have a public health component. However, until the CDC can demonstrate that it will look at the actual public health issues driving suicides and violence instead of attacking a right exercised peacefully by the exceedingly vast majority of gun owners, I have no desire to let them spend my tax money on what would surely be a partisan attack on my rights.

Should we be allowing Syrian (or any other) refugees to abandon their own country and immigrate to the U.S.? I don’t know, but it is worth discussing. Two questions for this topic come immediately to mind: 1) Is it the right thing to do? and 2) is it the most cost effective thing to do?

For the first question, we must consider the effect on a country when those that can and want to flee, do. What do we leave behind? Those in power, those who agree with the political system/regime, and those who are unable to leave. Why, then, are we so surprised when a despotic, totalitarian regime results? If those who desire change leave, what future change would we expect to occur? By allowing a mass exodus of the population who would genuinely want and drive change, we sentence those left behind to political slavery and create a regime that will likely have significant human rights issues. We should not forget the effects that our actions have on those left behind. Think of it this way: if this was instead a run-down, crime-ridden urban neighborhood in the U.S., would we rather remove those willing to leave and let the rest fend for themselves or would we rather want to go in and pull everyone and everything up into productive society? Can you imagine the effect of the former action?

With respect to the second question we should first look to obtain an estimate as to the expenses per refugee to U.S. taxpayers.  Unfortunately, estimates vary widely from  between $8,000 to as much as $64,000 per refugee over the long-term. The U.S. spent almost $1.6B in 2015 alone on refugee resettlement; Could this money be better spent on helping the refugees change lives in their own country?

I don’t have the answers to all the questions, but I would like to think that the legitimate concerns of Americans can be considered and addressed without resorting to silencing those concerns through claims of racism or religious intolerance. These are important issues that will have a significant future effect on our country, and the American public has the right to ask these important questions.

… I’m embarrassed that you are an American, too.

Bruce Springsteen, while playing a concert in Australia, made the declaration:

“We stand before you embarrassed Americans.”

So why are you embarrassed, Bruce? Could it be because of President Trump’s executive order temporarily banning refugees from nations that President Obama labeled as “countries of concern”? Well, did you know that the coalition government now reigning in Australia (where you were giving your concert when you made your embarrassing statement, don’t you know…?) came to power as an anti-refugee platform, on the slogan “No Way: You will not make Australia home”? Did you also know that Australia had rejected ~2500 refugees who came from these “countries of concern”, and instead pawned them off to America – you know, that place you are embarrassed to be from?

Thank you, Bruce, but I do not need you to speak for me, nor am I an embarrassed American. And I think there might be a few more Americans out there that feel the same way. Oh, and try to do a little more research on your concert venues before you embarrass yourself again.

It seems that Australia beat Trump to a refugee ban. The Australian Coalition government, led by Prime Minister Turnbull, came to power on the promise to stop refugees. From a recent CNN article:

The Coalition government, now led by Turnbull, campaigned in 2013 on a vow to “stop the boats,” and OSB included posters with slogans such as “No Way: You will not make Australia home.”

Turnbull has been quoted with respect to the refugees, “Our national security has to come first.”  Where are the protesters when you need them…?

President Obama’s administration announced shortly after the elections that they would be accepting ~2500 refugees found unacceptable to Australia. At the same time, the Obama administration has classified information about the transfer and the refugees, leaving Congress – as well as the American people – in the dark. How’s that for “transparency”?