Opuscula We all are Immigrants; However . . .

LIBERALS ARE HITTING THE STREETS across the country with signs clearly showing they miss the immigration point.

Signs such as the one the woman is carrying in the following image from the Daytona Beach News-Journal.

The woman in the photo, above, is almost correct, but there is a however to be considered.

Almost because unless she’s considering “Native Americans” – and we have many in Florida’s Everglades and nearby communities – as “immigrants,” her statement shows her ignorance – or perhaps simply denies reality.

However because while we or our antecedents are/were immigrants, we/they immigrated to the U.S. legally

Operative word: LEGALLY.

*   *   *

A little immigration history

The U.S. has been passing naturalization laws since 1787; the first law restricting immigration was passed in 1882.¹ The 1882 act, the first immigration law, barred Chinese – and only Chinese – from entry into the U.S. According to Wikipedia,

Chinese had immigrated to the Western United States as a result of unsettled conditions in China, the availability of jobs working on railroads, and the Gold Rush that was going on at that time in California.

Republican Chester Alan Arthur was president when the act was promulgated.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was preceded in 1875 by the Page Act that prohibited the entry of immigrants considered as "undesirable" The law classified as "undesirable" any individual from Asia who was coming to America to be a contract laborer. The Act, designed to prevent Orientals from being brought to the U.S. effectively as slave labor, imposed a fine of up to $2,000 and maximum jail sentence of one year upon anyone who tried to bring a person from China, Japan, or any oriental country to the United States "without their free and voluntary consent, for the purpose of holding them to a term of service" .

A list of naturalization and immigration laws from 1790 to 2012 is online.²

A thought: Had the Indians at Plymouth rock had an immigration policy, one that included a health inspection, the Pilgrims never would have been allowed ashore (as they brought European diseases with them).

If the sign waver’s antecedents came to the U.S. after the Immigration Act of 1891, they either entered the country legally or the Feds never caught them.

The QUOTA system was introduced with the The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act).³

The Immigration Act of 1924 limited the number of immigrants allowed entry into the United States through a national origins quota. The quota provided immigration visas to two percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census. It completely excluded immigrants from Asia.

Republican John Calvin Coolidge Jr was president when the law was enacted.

None of the above can be laid at President Trump’s door; at the same time, nothing President Trump has attempted to accomplish sets precedent.

A few words about walls

While Barack Obama did not pay Mexico to build a wall on Mexico’s southern border, he DID use taxpayer money to provide Mexico with, according to Snopes,⁴

$75 million worth of assistance to Mexico in the form of U.S. training and equipment in a joint effort to help secure southern borders and deal with issues of drug trafficking and immigration.

Obviously his largesse with taxpayer dollars went for naught. Drugs and emigrants from south of Mexico’s southern border still manage to reach, and enter, the U.S. via Mexico.

Why he opted to help build a wall between Mexico and its southern neighbors rather than a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border to “deal with issues of drug trafficking and immigration” only he and his State Department knows. (This is the same State Department, when under Hillary Clinton, that refused to protect U.S. consulate personnel in Benghazi from a planned “spontaneous” attack. Four U.S. citizens were murdered largely due to lack of requested protection.)

China built its “Great Wall” to keep out Mongol hordes.

Romans routinely built walls around their cities.⁵

Jericho – remember Joshua and the horns – had a wall.⁶

Berlin once was divided by a wall.

Hadrian was a wall builder; one in England is a “tourist must-see.”

The Temple’s Western Wall – never “Wailing Wall” – still stands in Jerusalem.

The wall of Troy, Turkey remain a tourist attraction. Istanbul (Constantinople) also has a wall.

Israel has walls to prevent terrorists from the so-called Palestinian Authority and Hamas from entering the country to murder Jews, Arabs, and others living in Israel.

The Huffington Post has a picture page of 13 famous walls around the world.⁷ Unfortunately, the site only has images, no descriptions re WHY the walls were built.

Walls surround military installations to keep unauthorized visitors out.

Walls surround prisons to keep “guests” in and unauthorized visitors out.

An aside: Joshua and thousands of Israelites blowing horns and stomping around Jericho may have triggered an earthquake. Jericho, Sodom, and Gomorrah all sit on the Dead Sea fault.⁸

*   *   *

The woman’s sign suggests that she certainly needs an American history lesson. Maybe her school failed to cover the reality of government actions before she took paint or marker to poster board, but she could have, should have, done here homework – everything is on the WWW as the footnotes below prove.

As far as the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border in concerned, ask why Obama spent U.S. dollars to help Mexico secure its still porous southern border. At least “Trump’s Wall” will put Americans to work, and maybe a few illegals, too. (Irony in BOLD CAPS)

---

Sources

1. http://tinyurl.com/y7cysjsk

2. http://tinyurl.com/jqvxz54

3. http://tinyurl.com/qe2tnuw

4. http://tinyurl.com/yb9d3uej

5. http://tinyurl.com/y8zawydy

6. http://tinyurl.com/n6o7y27

7. http://tinyurl.com/y7ofsvfr

8. http://tinyurl.com/yba2b6oj

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Comments on We’re all immigrants

Opuscula Leftist’s letter

I HAVE AN ACQUAINTANCE WHO IS AS FAR LEFT as I am to the right.

Somehow we manage to disagree civilly.

Our advantage is that we argue (debate) via email, so neither interrupts the other when that person has the floor.

We both are “senior citizens.”

WE’VE HAD A LENGTHY EXCHANGE regarding the illegal immigrants. (Illegal immigration, I discovered, is a misdemeanor with a sentence of up to two years,)

We both agree that separating the parents and children is a mistake. My correspondent seems to think almost everything that the Trump administration does is wrong, wrong, wrong.

While we usually are on opposite sides of the political fence as we debate this or that, I think we both learn a little from the other’s perspective; things we would not have considered discussing whatever subject with a like-minded person.

According to my correspondent, some of the illegals are escaping from environments where their lives are threatened.

Since I don’t keep a close watch on Central America, I couldn’t argue the point.

ON THE OTHER HAND, if the illegals simply are trying to find a safe haven, then the United States should be a “last hope.”

According to WorldOMeters.info ¹,

There are 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean today, according to the United Nations. The full list is shown in the table below, with current population and subregion (based on the United Nations official statistics).

Britannica² breaks down the countries by North and Central America, South America, the Caribbean, and Dependencies, all adding up to more than 33 countries. WorldOMeter’s count does not include the dependencies.

In addition to the countries shown on the map, below, Spanish also is the language of the Dominican Republic that shares an island with Creole-speaking Haiti.

Instead of running north through Mexico (from Guatemala or Nicaragua, where, my corespondent informs, peoples lives are threatened by terrorists, they should escape to the south to Panama (not shown on the map) and beyond to South America.

Heading south means remaining in countries that have Spanish as the national language, a language the refugees already know.

It appears from the map that going though Mexico – where ex-president Barack Obama sent US$75. million worth of assistance to Mexico in the form of U.S. training and equipment in a joint effort to help secure Mexico’s southern borders and deal with issues of drug trafficking and immigration³ – is longer and more difficult that heading south.

Since many of the illegals and more waiting at the U.S.-Mexican border are from Guatemala and Nicaragua, Obama’s larges with the U.S. taxpayers’ dollars was for naught.

Coming to the U.S. makes the illegals criminals.

It makes anyone who aids them criminals.

It makes anyone who employs the criminals – and they should be prosecuted for their crime.

It makes the illegals integration into America communities difficult since they lack the language.

It puts an additional burden on the U.S. taxpayer who must now feed, clothe, and educate the illegals and provide them with medical care that many American citizens cannot afford (Obama care or otherwise).

It also pushes people legally waiting for entry into the U.S. farther from their goal since the illegals count against the immigration quotas for their country of origin.

The American taxpayer, and the illegal aliens, would be better off funding the illegals’ transport south to Panama and beyond. South America has room (see map) to absorb the people clogging the U.S.-Mexico border.

The illegals congregate in the warmer climates they had in their countries of origin. For the U.S., that means the border and Gulf states. They cannot be relocated to northern climes due to a SCOTUS ruling preventing Cuban’s from being relocated from Florida to the northern states – “too cold for them” the Supremes decided. (They may relocate anywhere in the U.S., but they cannot be forced to relocate. American Indians were a different matter.)

The truth is that the illegals are expecting that yet another U.S. president will put them on a “fast track” to legal residence and citizenship. (Presidents of both parties have committed this affront to the law.)

---

Sources

1. http://tinyurl.com/yd2ap3o6

2. http://tinyurl.com/y7kxkjop

3. http://tinyurl.com/yb9d3uej

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Comments on Go south

Opuscula Form letters: Politicians’ Everything answer

THE JUSTIFIABLE FLAP OVER separating children from their criminal (illegal alien) parents has politicians on both the left and the right demanding change.

Children, in this scrivener’s opinion, deserve to be with their parents – both parents if they have them.

ON THE OTHER HAND, children and parents are separated every day when the parents are charged with a crime. In most cases, the State turns the children over to a close relative until the parents are tried and found innocent and released. If the parents are guilty, then the children might stay with the relative or be put into the State’s child protection system.

Unfortunately for the children of illegal immigrants, a close legal relative may be hard to find.

WHY SEPARATE THE PARENTS AND CHILDREN AT ALL?

I wrote to three local politicians suggesting the same thing:

Put BOTH the parents AND the children at BRAC-closed military installations that have not been taken over by civilian devlopers.

The bases have the infrastructure to support the as yet untried illegals AND their children.

Consider:

• The bases can be secured; the government is housing the illegals and their children in secure facilities now, so no additional expense
• The bases have kitchens to feed the illegals; the government is feeding them anyway, so no additional expense
• The bases have medical facilities; the government is providing medical care for the illegals anyway, so no additional expense
• The bases have housing, both residential for married personnel and barracks for unmarried personnel; replace “personnel” with “illegals” and you populate the housing. Since the illegals have to be housed anyway, no additional expense.
• The bases have recreational facilities and day rooms – just like jails; again, no additional expense.
• Finally, the bases have on-site detention facilities for those illegals who commit other crimes, both violent and non-violent. Guess what: no additional expense.

I know this because as a young airman I was stationed at several different bases in several different locations.

*   *   *

I made my suggestion on how to keep families together while still maintaining security – keeping the illegals under watch until their INS hearings.

I sent emails to

Rep. Wasserman-Schultz Sen. Bill Nelson Sen. Marco Rubio

I received “responses” from all three. (I was unable to contact others, including Rep. Carlos Curbelo who manages a lot of “face time” before the media, because if a person doesn’t live in the congress person’s district, their emails are rejected and snail mails go unread. It wasn’t always like that.)

The responses proved that the hangers on who handle the politicians’ mail didn’t bother to read and understand the contents of my email; basically what appears above. Sen. Nelson’s people managed to at least comprehend the general topic, but obviously failed to go beyond the email form’s category.

It is unfortunate that President Trump, (in)famous for his knee-jerk tweets, apparently has surrounded himself with like-minded knee-jerkers.

Did EVERYONE fail to recognize the fallout from the mass separation of children from their criminal parents?

Make no mistake, the parents who brought their children illegally into the U.S. ARE criminals; they were “caught in the act.”

Never mind that a few children are separated from their parents every day when the parents are incarcerated for (allegedly) committing crimes; the hue and cry is being raised because of the VOLUME of separations. That and the fact that the separations are being orchestrated by the INS, a federal government agency. Read “Blame it on Trump”.”

Apparently no one in Washington considered the the PR fall-out. In politics, image is everything. For the current administration, assailed by the leftist without interruption from the first primary until today (6/20/18), this is just another day in the media, but a particularly bad one.

What President Trump needs on his staff is a person who THINKS and has undeniable access to the president, a person (such as an Enterprise Risk Management practitioner) who looks at all possibilities related to a presidential fiat and recommends means to avoid or mitigate the public’s reaction. Someone who thinks, excuse the cliche, “outside the box”; someone who plays the “What if?” game.

A well thought out plan might have avoided much of the anti-Trump rhetoric from sources other than Hillary and her leftist sycophants for whom Republicans in general (save for John McCain) and Trump specifically can do nothing right in their eyes.

While the leftists will chastise and castigate the administration no matter what it does, much of the uproar over separation of children from parents could have, should have, been avoided by a little foresight on the part of someone, anyone, who (a) thinks and (b) has access to the president.

Again, it is Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to separate children from criminal parents. When that becomes necessary, the children are sent to a relative or become (temporary) wards of the State.

The difference here is the sheer volume of illegal aliens who ARE guilty – caught in the act – who brought their children into the country, perhaps hoping for leftist sympathy (which they have).

For all that, there was, and is, no reason to separate the children from their parents.

Indeed, the separation is contra-indicated since both the children and their parents should be deported. Keeping everyone together makes the deportation process simpler for all concerned.

Open the bases.

House the criminals and their children on the bases and provide them with all the things they are being provided separately.

Fingerprint and photograph both parents and children and ban all from ever entering the U.S. again.

Then put them on a bus or military plane back to their country of origin (unless they can prove they would be in danger; then deport them to another country in Latin America).

DO NOT DEPORT PARENTS SANS THEIR CHILDREN. Keep families together. Deport them together.

This will NOT make the leftists happy, but it is humane and it does keep families united.

---

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Comments on Form letters

Opuscula Former CIA boss Proves “intelligence” Is lacking in makeup

FORMER USAF GENERAL AND EX-CIA BOSS in a tweet, compared the Trump administration’s immigration policies to nazi Germany.¹

The man, who claims to have walked the tracks leading to Poland’s most infamous murder camp, claims that the administration's immigration policies are similar to the nazi’s extermination policies.

Michael Hayden equates the nazi’s separating able bodied men and women from the sick and elderly as the same as separation of children – victims of their parents illegal entry into the U.S. -- with mass murderers.

With his lack of knowledge of history it’s hard to see how he became boss of the CIA. (Having been in the Air Force, I understand his rise to four-star.)

Under President Trump’s anti-invasion by illegals into the U.S., parents ARE separated from their children.

Why?

The parents are jailed prior to a hearing.

Why not let the parents free on their own recognizance? Stupid question. They have no reason to return to a hearing; they have no connection to the location or to the U.S.; “flight risk” is an understatement.

The government could put the children into the California child welfare system, but the left-wing California state government won’t accept the responsibility. Rather California supports “sanctuary cities” where criminals – for that’s what illegal aliens are, criminals – can find refuge.

Instead, the Federal government has set up camps for the children. So far, the camps have been in real, brick-and-mortar buildings, but the Left already is claiming that children soon will be housed in tents. As a small child I went to summer camp in northern Indiana and slept on a cot under a leaky canvass tent. No A/C. Not only did campers have to make a 40-yard dash to an outhouse, one year the campers helped move the outhouse from hole to hole. No one thought it child abuse. We swam in a fresh water lake with fish and the occasional water moccasin – no chlorinated pools for us. Still, better than Obama’s chicken cages for children.

In contrast to the Obama-era images, above, go to the EBL news video at https://youtu.be/p7m2UCaoMcU to see a video of how campers are treated by the government Hayden equates with nazis.

The children – as a CNN (!) tv report clearly showed – are

housed,
fed,
receive medical care,
learn,
and play.

Hardly Auschwitz-Birkenau.²

Apparently the former intelligence chief fails to comprehend something that simple.

*   *   *

The Alternatives

1. Put the children in jail with their parents.

Before the far left screams “inhumane,” there IS an alternative to the cross bar hotel.

During World War 2, Democrat then president Franklin Delano Roosevelt interned Japanese Americans in concentration (look up the word “concentration”) camps in several locations across the U.S. FDR also interned – albeit in much smaller numbers, a few German-Americans and Italian-Americans. Note the “-Americans” in the identities.

FDR also set up a prison camp for German POWs near Stockton CA where, history records, they were well received by the local population.

The Federal government could reopen one or more military bases closed by BRAC. The bases have housing – both family and barracks for singles – medical and educational facilities and kitchens and “mess” halls. (“Mess” is a military term, not to be confused with “mess” as in what pre-kindergarten children manage to do so well. )

According to tv “news” on 6/19/18, the Feds already are using some bases to house juveniles only.

The bases also have – albeit mostly of limited capacity – jails for miscreants.

2. Put the illegals – adults and children --on buses and send them back to the border.

Each criminal – adult and child – would be finger printed and photographed and sent on his or her way. INS would log the information and mark these people as forever banned from entering the U.S. – not as legal immigrants and not as visitors.

But they never would see Disneyland.

Not such a big deal. It’s over-priced anyway. Even former Soviet Premier Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev was prevented from visiting the mouse house.³

It might be better to put the illegals on Air Force C-5s and fly them back to their country of origin. That way, guys bucking for Command Pilot wings and four stars could get their flight hours in. The C-5s are may steps up from the U.S. and English transport planes that brought in more than 51,000 Jews from Aden (500), Djibouti and Eritrea (500), Saudi Arabia (2,000), and Yemen (47,000) .⁴ Israeli C-130s and Boeing 747s, a step up from the transports used for the previous airlift, but still hardly a C-5, brought in 14,325 Ethiopian Jews to Israel in 36 hours.⁵ For what it’s worth, I have flown in WW2 DC-3s (C-47s) and C-119s, C-130s, L-1011s, and even an L-16, albeit the L-16 is only a two-seater.

Why immigration?

Why would anyone want to immigrate to the U.S. So many Americans, including many Hollywood stars and media “personalities,” promised to leave the country if Donald Trump was elected president. Unfortunately, almost to a person they reneged.

People come to the U.S. for opportunity.

That always has been the reason.

The U.S. has, for decades, limited immigration with quotas. Right or wrong, that is how the process works.

Illegal immigrants are like people who push into queues; they take the place of people who made the effort to get in line early; to wait patiently.

These are not people who will make good citizens.

Neither are the people who hire them, often for well below minimum wage,; people who hide them (they, too, are criminals and should be arrested and jailed or, if appropriate, deported).

It is human nature – not limited to illegal aliens – that, when starving, people commit crimes to survive.

Unless the criminals rounded up by or for INS are released from incarceration they will need to

a. Return from whence they came, with family or
b. Commit additional crimes to survive.

I am not of the opinion that all immigrants are threats to the nation. I am of the opinion that all potential immigrants be thoroughly vetted. The same applies to people issued visas for any reason.

Leftists will call me cruel and inhumane, but I suggest opening the borders to people who break into line will in the end result in a rise in crime as the illegals try to survive. I fear that the crimes will escalate to levels that will require long-term incarceration and more families living on the dole.

Is that really what the leftists want?

So it seems.

---

Sources

1. http://tinyurl.com/yc2p3m8b

2. http://auschwitz.org/en/history/

3. http://tinyurl.com/ybovzx6p

4. http://tinyurl.com/y9ow6rrm

5. http://tinyurl.com/y8rhasyo

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Comments on U.S. = nazis?

Opuscula Do homework Before buying

MOST OF US DO AT LEAST A LITTLE homework before making a purchase of more than a few coins.

Most of the homework is cursory.

That’s not enough.

IF YOU REALLY WANT that Benz E350 and only care about flaunting your wealth, skip the homework.

But if you want something that won’t cost an arm and a leg later, do the homework.

The Benz may be perfect for some people.

My Second Born son used to buy – perhaps still does – Lexmark laser printers.

My Daughter bought a Canon MG2520 bubble jet.

Both printers have the same problem: the replacement ink costs more than the printer’s retail price.

Walmart sells the Canon for $25 and tax. ComboInk sells the printer’s two replacement cartridges (245XL and 246XL) for $36.78 and shipping.¹ The ink is not the more expensive Canon ink.

My son’s laser printers have the same problem: it costs more to buy the toner than to buy a replacement printer (albeit the replacement printer’s toner may not be as full as the replacement toner).

But the printers’ purchase prices look good and, in the case of Canon, the printers have a good provenance. (I have two Canon bubblejet printers that, like a Timex watch, take a licking and keep on ticking; I also have four Canon cameras – two film and two digital.)

I have an “inexpensive” car – Hyundai Elantra c 2008. It should be like my old (1956) Ford Custom: easy for a non-mechanic to do minor maintenance (such as changing a headlight).

While the Hyundai IS much more owner friendly than a 1990 Jaguar XJ6 (X40), it still is a pain in the patience to change the driver’s side headlight. In order to change a sealed beam headlight on the Ford, remove a few screws, remove the old lamp and install the new lamp. In order to change a headlight in the Jaguar XJ6, the entire grill assembly must be removed! To replace the bulb in the Hyundai, the battery must be removed (and then reset clock and radio). I no longer have the Ford or the Jag.

Never mind about the Benz.

To change windshield wiper blades – if the owner’s manual is to be believed – means spending more than $100 at a Benz dealer’s shop. This is for an E350. (I saw a receipt.) By contrast, a set of wiper blades for the Hyundai cost as little as $8, complete with “how to install” instructions.

The old and beautiful Benz 300SL gull wing’s engine compartment was so tightly crammed with metal that a mechanic had to have very small hands to access anything. The Datsun (now Nissan) 3000 with four in-line SU carburetors was roomier.

All the above is not to claim that today’s flivers are not more reliable. They simply are more difficult to repair . . . even minor things (e.g., headlights).

Computerization of everything has accomplished two things: greatly reduced troubleshooting time and greatly increased cost to repair. That statement applies across the board: cars, tvs, airplanes, stoves, and more.

I have a mechanic who, while he HAS the gear to connect to a car’s computer, his EXPERIENCE over the years has given him the knowledge to diagnose my car’s woes using only his senses: vision, hearing, touch, and – perhaps most important – common.

I once watched a mechanic near Okeechobee FL tune a car’s engine. He adjusted the timing, listened, and tweaked the timing until he was satisfied. THEN he got out the timing gun to confirm what he already knew. He was better than the mechanic that changed the timing belt on a Subaru Legacy with a timing light … the timing was way off.

While many prospective buyers read the spec (specification) sheets, few actually concern themselves with routine maintenance: changing light bulbs or printer ink/toner, power sources (AC, DC, 115± 10% - 230± 10%, NTSC/PAL (tv and video cameras), power requirements for electric tools and appliances (voltage, Amperage, Watts), fuel octane and more). Even mobile (cell) phones; what works in one country may not work in another.

If the product’s spec sheet fails to provide the information, ask the vendor. If the vendor lacks the information, perhaps there is an online user manual.

Doing your homework is more than just looking at a product and its purchase price.

---

Sources

1. Internet prices as of 17 June 2018.

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Comments on Homework

Enterprise Risk Management, BC, COOP “Requests for” Are important Buying tools

ADVISEN FPN ONCE AGAIN triggers thoughts that, while not strictly “risk management,” are “close enough.”

There are three “requests for” documents that everyone charged with buying anything need to consider.

1.  Request for Information (RFI)

2.  Request for Proposal (RFP)

3.  Request for Quote (RFQ)

RARELY DOES a buyer know as much about a product category as the folks who make and maintain that product.

I was tasked with finding a multi-function Customer Support application.

Customer Support, while I’ve done it from time to time, is not my field.

I did a search and found several companies that claimed their product could do what I thought I needed to accomplish.

I sent out Requests for Information (RFIs) to selected vendors.

The responses I received opened my eyes to the potential of Customer Support software . . . and more.

Based on responses to the RFIs, I invited two or three vendors to individual face-to-face meetings.

During those meetings I learned more about the products’ capabilities and what, if any, benefits my organization would accrue with each vendor’s product.

Based on the face-to-face meetings, I sent a Request for Proposal (RFP) to the vendors I interviewed.

The RFP instructed the vendors NOT to include pricing.

Back when I was involved with mil-spec hardware, I learned that (at least) the U.S. government insisted on separate proposal and quote documents. Apparently the proposals were reviewed by the people who would USE the product while the quotes were reviewed by the bean counters for dollar value.

Although I had interviewed the vendors submitting responses to my RFPs and RFQs, management still had to put its stamp of approval.

The vendors’ responses to my RFP also helped me to “sell” the product to management.

Finally, the vendors response to the RFQ was presented to management.

Was a higher priced product justified? Would a lower-priced product do the basic job we intended?

VENDORS AS EXPERTS

In a previous life I was a writer – first for newspapers (you remember those), then PR, and finally technical publications.
As a tech writer I managed to attend several conventions for writers.

At each convention there were a multitude of vendors pitching products (along with tee shirts, pens, and other nonsense) to the folks who might use their products.

I never turned down a vendor “dog and pony” (presentation) if I thought the vendor had a product I could use to make my job easier, faster, or more cost effective. (Writers usually are considered overhead that contribute nothing to the organization’s bottom line; therefore “cost effectiveness” was a personal priority. For what it’s worth, the opinion that writers are just overhead is a gross canard.)

No one knew both their product and the competitions’ products better than the pitchmen and women at the conventions.

MY FIRST PURCHASE

This will be telling my age (I’m a geezer and proud of it).

My first RF-series purchase was for a desktop publishing system.

My employer, prior to my coming on board, was paying a contractor “Big Bucks” to write, compose, and print small manuals. When the contractor proposed to compose some text and drawings for a mere $20,000 I went to my boss and suggested I could buy a complete desktop publishing system for much less and I would compose the document.

My boss bought the idea and I started researching what the company needed for desktop publishing.

The total bill, for computer, software applications, and a laser printer came to less than $10,000.¹

Over my writing career I used multiple versions of Ventura (later Corel) Publisher, Interleaf, Adobe FrameMaker, and even PageMaker. My favorites – for the jobs I was doing – were Publisher and FrameMaker. Word, while an excellent word processor, is not, in my opinion, a page composition application. This blog entry was created using LibreOffice Writer which offers fewer UI changes than Microsoft’s product . . . and is free.

Buying a product always is enlightening providing the buyer goes into the purchase with an open mind.

I’ve selected a number of products for a number of organization and it always is educational.

---

Sources

1. 80286 computer with 19-inch monitor; Windows, Microsoft Word, Ventura Publisher, In-a-Vision, optical mouse, laser printer.

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Comments on RFx

Opuscula SCOTUS rules: Baker’s faith wins Vs. LGBTQ cake

HAS SANITY RETURNED TO AMERICA?
Perhaps a small step was taken in that direction by a recent Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) decision.

According to several media web sites^{1, 2, 3}, the Supremes reversed a Colorado court ruling that a baker is obliged to cater to customers who want a cake that violates the baker’s religious beliefs.

There are a number of similar cases that likely will come before the nation’s highest court.

In none of the cases this scrivener knows about, all the couples seeking a product that violated the vendor’s sensibilities could have gone to another nearby vendor for whatever product they desired. (In at least one case, another bakery; in another a flower shop.)

USA Today’s leed^cq paragraph reads:

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex wedding could mark the first step toward allowing businesses to withhold certain services based on religious grounds, but it doesn't open the floodgates for widespread discrimination.

Reuters noted that:

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The court concluded that the commission violated Phillips’ religious rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

But the justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religion. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution’s free speech guarantee.

The New York Times’ story noted that

“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote I the majority opinion, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

Reuters claimed that

Seventy-two percent of U.S. adults believe that businesses should not have the right on religious grounds to deny services to customers based on their sexual orientation, a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Monday showed.

As usual for such polls, information about how the questions were phrased, to whom and where the questions were presented were omitted from Reuters’ article.

Perhaps I’m just contrary, but if a merchant doesn’t want my business, I’ll go elsewhere, providing there IS an elsewhere to go. It’s the “flip side” of me not liking a business and going elsewhere. Should the business I elected NOT to patronize sue me for going elsewhere?

In my opinion, we are too quick to “Sue the B*st*rds” (the title of an interesting book). Are we looking for a moment of fame, or are we after “big bucks,” a small portion of which we might enjoy after lawyers’ fees and taxes.

It is not just real or perceived discrimination. We are “Johnny n the spot” to sue for anything that smacks of sexual harassment or abuse.

The other day a female cashier told me “Have a nice day, honey.” Perhaps I should find an attorney (there are several on my block) to sue the woman and the store franchisee and the chain behind the franchise for sexual liberties. Maybe I could sue the company that made the peanut butter I bought – and all the companies in the supply chain that handled the product from the peanut farmer to the truck driver who delivered the product to the store.

Of course the scenario above is ludicrous, but given some of the cases brought before the courts today, maybe “ludicrous” is too strong a word.

The Constitution and all its amendments guarantees equal rights to all citizens (even if that is largely wishful thinking). To my Edward Bear mind, that means if I have a business (and there is nearby competition) I can select to whom I wish to cater. If you are in the group whose custom I reject, you have the equal right to go elsewhere or open a competing business.

I’m waiting until someone from the LGBTQ community sues a house of ill repute in Nevada (where they are not illegal⁴) for discrimination.

---

Sources

1. http://tinyurl.com/y8tdme3q

2. http://tinyurl.com/ybpsy3uh

3. http://tinyurl.com/ybntg3na

4. http://tinyurl.com/ngruuvb

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Comments on SCOTUS

Opuscula Do what cop says, Fight arrest in court

I JUST WATCHED YET ANOTHER person refusing to do what a cop said to do.

In this case, the crime was underage drinking on a Florida beach.

Instead of complying with the cop’s instructions, the underage drinker fought with the cops, turning what probably would have been a citation (like a traffic ticket) into a resisting arrest charge … in addition to the original charge.

The “take down” was captured by the cop’s body camera and, I’m sure, by numerous cell phones. No doubt the young person will be suing for “police brutality.”

ELSEWHERE IN THE AREA, a young man was shot and killed by police who ordered the man to stop; he didn’t. The young man had a record of assaults (plural) with a deadly weapon, a fact of which the cops must have been aware.

TRUTH IN BLOGGING My first born is a cop. In all his years on the force, he has used his gun once, against a person trying to kill him. The only other time the weapon is fired is on the range.

While there are exceptions to every rule, and admittedly there are rogue cops who behave like a Wild West gun fighter, if a cop orders a person to do something, the person is well advised to comply.

The cop may not be right, but the cop always is a cop. If you disagree with the cop’s orders, do what you are told anyway and settle it in court.

At the scene, the cop ALWAYS has the upper hand; rather than jeopardize your health and possibly your life, comply with the cop’s command. Save your umbrage; sue the cop and the cop’s department and let a judge decide if an arrest and the cop’s actions were appropriate.

Police brutality claims are as automatic as sexual harassment (#metoo) claims. Resist arrest and someone with a cell phone camera will record the cop’s take down.

Justified or not, someone will scream “Police brutality.”

No resistance means no brutality.

Cops DO make mistakes.

But there is no reason to compound the cop’s mistake by resisting arrest.

SAVE IT FOR THE COURTROOM

If an arrest is illegal, if the person is innocent, the court will decide.

If the court rules against the cops, get a hungry lawyer and sue all the available “deep pockets”: the cop, the department, the municipality, the company that made the cop’s car – why not, people are suing gun makers and gun sellers. Best case, the cop is cashiered and you walk away with a fistful of (taxable) cash.

The cop may be wrong, but the cop always is the cop.

Let the courts decide.

Resisting arrest is foolish and can be dangerous to your health.

---

PLAGIARISM is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Defamation is a false statement of fact. If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn’t defamatory.

Comments onDo what cop says