Refugees Storm Fence in Spain January 1, 2017

Today there are news reports of migrants trying to force their way into Spain by rushing a fence. Almost all 1,100 were forced back. (A few went to the hospital). Police were injured.

The obvious lesson from this incident and the hundreds of other attempts by migrants to rush border fences across Europe is that fences and walls are useless without human support. In Athens, Greece many residents, cab drivers, hotel clerks and business owners and a few police officers that I managed to find told me that Athens was almost devoid of police officers because so many were assigned to the fences. "Even the police trainees at the police academy are at the fences".

If we ever invest the billions needed to build the wall on our southern border, we will need to patrol it day and night. The military do not want such a duty. We will not shoot women and children We will not electrify fences or plant mines.

Whoever patrols our border must be trained in our immigration and refugee laws. People seeking refugee status have specific rights under our laws. Those laws need to be changed, but people are so busy screaming, "enforce our laws" that they prevent any real discussion about those laws that even provide refugee status to victims of family violence. The laws are the real problem.

We need a reasonable set of immigration laws that are consistently enforced in an impartial manner. Our first obligation is to our own citizens and it may be in their interest to help Mexico and other nations to improve economically and to live under a rule of just law.

Why did these people from sub-Sahara Africa rush the fence?
I will post my answer, based on conversations from other African refugees.

Use Your Sound Judgement and Never Trust a Headline!

We Have Nothing to Fear, Except the Media

The media continues to destroy our faith in America, provokes racial tension and only 32% of Americans say that they trust the media.

Avoid fear and use some good judgment and common sense.

Rule 1    Understand your principles and live by them.

Rule 2    Find the source materials for stories and draw your own conclusions. Keep things in context.

Rule 3    Email or write sponsors and media outlets regarding specific lies, misleading headlines and exaggerations.

Rule 4    Invest 2-minutes into checking facts when stories upset you or sound too good to be true.

Rule 5    Do not live in fear.

News reports will soon focus on various end of year statistics, based on our calendar year. Because the government will leak or simply provide information in drips and drabs, the media will provide lots of stories and debates. Most will be slanted to reflect the media’s desires. 

Read the actual statistics that will be available on-line and to be vigilant as the media tries to manipulate us with arched eyebrows, heavy sighs and adjectives and adverbs. Some radio stations host actually talk over, drum their fingers, and sigh while broadcasting parts of speeches and press conferences! (Write the station sponsors and tell them you no longer bother to listen).

If you read the actual reports and numbers that are released, without the media filters, you will not be frightened and can make up your own mind about what the numbers mean.

In the meantime, we do have statistics from the fiscal year, 2016, which runs from October 1, 2015 and September 30, 2016. I mention this because the media will quote whichever source makes their point and will even mix their sources to produce a slanted view of key issues.

Watch for reports that compare whole numbers and percentages. Watch for apple to oranges comparisons.

Remember that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot distrust the media and quote the media when something is reported that supports your views. Rely on real facts.

Rejecting the Premise

Answering a question about a complicated situation in a witness chair is frustrating when the attorney  demands a 'yes' or 'no' answer. We often try to answer with more complete information so that the jury can make an informed decision, but the judge directs us to answer the question with a 'yes' or 'no'.

It never made sense to me. Why would anyone not want to provide all of the information? Do the jurors really want the simple answer so they can make a quick judgment? Some questions cannot be honestly and morally answered with only two possible choices.

The debate and conversation about refugees is very complex and millions have accepted the premise that there are only two types of young men fleeing places like Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and South Sudan: terrorists and those at risk of becoming terrorists. I reject this premise. The premise is based upon fear. I live in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' and want to know when did we become the 'home of the afraid'?

Millions upon millions of us fear a religion. Even more fear change. I am not among them. Do terrorists commit horrible murders? Yes, a small handful commit horrible murders. However, more murders are committed in many U.S. cities that have a few million citizens. (There are one and a half billion Muslims in the world and the percentage of murderers is minuscule compared with the percentage of murders committed by Black residents of Chicago or Baltimore).  [I know that I just said the unspeakable. Blacks in a single city murder more people than terrorists]. But, let us return to refugees and our fears.

The fake news sites and legitimate news sites fuel the flames. While the fake news sites contain complete lies, the legitimate media may be just as harmful with their half-truths and selective reporting. However, fake and incomplete news stories are not the real problem. The real problem is that we want our prejudices and fear of our changing culture to be justified and we want a make-believe solution.

Fact-checking only takes a few moments. If an issue is important to you, why would you not check the facts of every story concerning that issue?

What in the Hell Just Happened?

How did he win? My messages and phone calls on the 'morning after' were pretty much the same. "How did he win?" Everyone wanted to know how Donald Trump became President-Elect Trump. Just because I do well in Las Vegas, people seem to think I have the answers. Well, I have a few.

Half of the nation hated Mr. Trump and half hated Mrs. Clinton. This was, for many, a choice of voting against the person we hated the most. I asked a lot of people how they would vote and they all gave similar answers. "I can't vote for that person". I don't recall anyone actually listing the wonderful things that their candidate would do. That being said, many people told me that they would support Mr. Trump because he would be different and change things. In other words, people were disgusted with the same old government. 

I believe that even members of NOW supported Mr. Trump, even though he is a pig when it comes to women. Women also want change. Also, women are more sophisticated than Mrs. Clinton thinks and they will not vote for a woman just because she is a woman. (Besides, in this world, gender can change and we can't even figure out who should use which bathroom).

Also, a lot of working class people are sick of being ignored, lied to and taken for granted. 

Fear? Yes, fear was a motivation. People are afraid of all Muslims, thanks to the press and hate sites like Breitbart. Mr. Turmp stoked those fires and tossed in Mexicans just to make sure all Whites were afraid and angry. He also used the age-old technique of blaming "them". As Hitler's propaganda machine said, the masses love to blame 'them' and if you combine fear and hate, you can easily control the masses.

Mrs. Clinton tried to convince us that we should fear Mr. Trump having the launch codes. The reason that did not work is that we were conditioned long ago to blame 'them' and to fear 'them' and we were taught to believe that if it were not for "them" all of our problems would be solved. Mrs. Clinton was presenting a brand new fear when she warned us that Mr. Trump was unstable.

So we have a new president. Get over it. Don't cry. Don't skip college classes because you are too sad. At the end of the day, President-Elect Trump received more Electoral votes.

In a Nutshell

Poor people, homeless people, poor unskilled refugees and migrants, Muslims, and especially poor people of color need to just go away. We do not care about your problems. We don’t want to see it, hear about it or read about it. We just want you out of our lives. (We can’t admit this because it might sound as if we are bigots and condescending. However, it takes too much effort to cite make-believe reasons for our hidden beliefs).

We want all jobs that were outsourced to other nations, returned to the USA and we want all the robotics and computers (the real cause of job losses) to disappear. 

We also want those high wages for those old jobs and we expect the cost of living not to rise so that those wages can be paid and so we can stop inexpensive imports.

We want a magical wall that separates Mexico from the USA in such a way that no ladder or tunnel will circumvent this wall. We expect the government to build this wall without seizing any private property and we expect Mexico to pay for this wall. 

Although our puny minds have not realized that we will also ‘need’ a magic wall along our border with Canada to prevent the hundreds of thousands of refugees they plan to accept from entering the USA, we want that too. Perhaps Canadians will pay for that wall.

Since we don’t realize that Mexico is the second largest purchaser of US exports, we don’t ask for a solution for the jobs we will lose as we begin a tariff war.

Yes, this is what we want.

I call this little missive “In a Nutshell” because we know what we find inside of a nutshell: nuts.

The Winner? The Debate Moderator's Agenda

The Winner – Mr. Holt, the moderator with an agenda

We were told that this Monday’s first presidential debate would have three focuses: “securing America, America’s direction, and achieving prosperity. The debate moderator traditionally chooses the themes and the questions for the presidential debates.

Heavy reports that Lester Holt, NBC anchor and moderator of this Monday’s debate, solely chose the night’s topics and wrote its questions.

Mr. Holt should explain why he questioned Donald Trump about releasing his tax returns. How does the release of those returns, however desirable that may be, impact “securing America, America’s direction, or achieving prosperity?

Mr. Holt should also explain why he questioned Donald Trump about his view about the location of President Obama’s birth? How do those remarks impact “securing America, America’s direction, or achieving prosperity?

While Mr. Holt is dreaming up answers to those two questions, here is a third. Why did he not ask former Secretary of State lies about her e-mails, the destruction of e-mails, and her decisions regarding Benghazi? Why did she not retain all e-mails and let a judge determine which were personal and not to be released?

In fact, Mr. Holt could have pursued an array of questions about Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in many suspicious actions that had a direct bearing on the security of America.

It was obvious to this observer that Mr. Holt came loaded for Donald Trump. I predict that the media will ignore the obvious bias of Mr. Holt and Mr. Holt won the debate.

He Should Have Played the Quiet Game

Suppose Donald Trump kept his mouth shut. 

Regardless of what you may think of Mr. Trump, I find this supposition interesting. Without all of the controversial remarks and flamethrower language after he secured the nomination the media would have been constantly focused on Hillary Clinton. The e-mails, the lies, and her entire history in politics would have been the focus of the media. Oh, some of Mr. Trump’s past and things that he said during the run-up to the convention would have been targeted, but Hillary Clinton would have made for much more interesting reading.

When Mr. Trump was asked about his previous statements, for example the deportation of illegal immigrants, he could have given a brief answer that he will always do what the people demand and what is best for the country. Evasive? Yes. Bland? Yes. But he would not have wounded himself.

Whatever we think of Trump, he remains his own worst enemy. He has said so many horrible things that many believe he remains close friends with the Clintons and is deliberately helping her.

Suppose Donald Trump kept his mouth shut.