Good for Business

 GOOD FOR BUSINESS

As you know,  me being a criminal defense lawyer, I'm always looking for ways to make my particular profession more profitable.  This being the major reason why I'm always rooting for our state legislature to make more crimes and more severe punishments every time they are in session.  Usually, they are quite active in doing so and I am thankful for that.

What we now have is a great example of another method of increasing our business, hence the earning power of the criminal defense bar.  President Trump is leading the way and must be given credit for this new effort - - prosecuting our political rivals or people who displease us.  Comey and Bolton are great examples.  This effort must be studied and emulated by our own governor, Reynolds, and our own attorney general, Brenna Bird.

When you think about it, it will be a whole new era in America - - prosecuting political opponents and people who don't please.  We have the framework now of a police state that will be able to assist in this effort.  We've always had secret police, but now they are even more secret - - wearing masks and such.  I can only applaud the efforts that are being made to increase the business of people in my particular profession, the criminal defense bar.

I know that I am in the minority here in that most of my colleagues think this effort to prosecute political rivals and people who don't please as unamerican and fascist.  But what the Hey!  It's good for business:  I'm all for it.  We've got thousands of crimes on the books both federal, state, county, city, etc.  We should be using them to good purpose by putting more people in jail and otherwise making their lives miserable.  They will need my services.   I can see my business mushrooming.  Congress and our state legislatures have been making more crimes every session for several centuries now.  It's time we begin using them.

You ask, how is this possible?  It's easy.  Trump has shown the way.  You call up your attorney general or local county attorney and say "Hey Ms. Attorney General, so-and-so  said nasty things about me and I want him prosecuted.  Find some crime you can charge him with and do so promptly."  As I said, with all the crimes that are on the books, it should be easy to find something to charge him with.  

In Iowa, you don't even need a grand jury to indict, you merely need to file a trial information and you can do this without having to convince a group of citizens to be accomplices in your efforts to use the criminal law for your own benefit.  It is even easier than in the federal system where you need a grand jury, so let's get with it shall we.  Inflation is with us, it costs more money than ever to survive in a decent manner, and the more money we have, the better it is.  I know this is a little self-serving, but oh well.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Climate Radicalism

CLIMATE RADICALISM

Well, we have a whole new radicalism to concern ourselves with.  This coming from our own attorney general, Brenna Bird; and it must be so if she says so.  After all, she is attorney general and therefore a person who knows of what she speaks.  

The particular offender in this instance is the European Union, a group of 27 countries.  The offense of which our attorney general speaks is a recent enactment concerning not only ESG, environmental, social, and governance practices, but also diversity, equity, and inclusion.  This enactment is known, apparently, as the "Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive" and includes "sweeping" requirements.  No wonder Brenda is beside herself.

This radical green agenda most assuredly will adversely affect just about everything we hold near and dear here in Iowa.  And if directly affecting American companies, farmers, and such with "unconstitutional and immoral requirements", it is not tolerable.    It clearly is not tolerable according to the attorney generals of Florida, West Virginia, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.

You would think with all this firepower, the European Union would simply take note and rectify the situation immediately.  Surely with such distinguished disgruntlement, the effort to address adverse human rights and environmental impacts would be acknowledged to be the hocus pocus that it is and discarded quickly.  What a ludicrous notion that the European Union can enact its own rules  which affect us Americans requiring American companies to comply if doing business in the European Union.

We don't have these silly DEI and ESG rules here to make things complicated for foreign companies and a simple immigration raid now and then shouldn't count.  So we need to applaud our attorney general in turning her attention to European matters where things are really out of control.

   There is nothing very pressing going on in Iowa that needs her attention anyway.  She's got plenty of people working for her to take care of anything that pops up needing immediate attention.  Maybe it would be a good idea if all these attorney generals have a pow wow and decide on some decisive action to counteract this environmental radicalism that seems to be current on the other side of the Atlantic.  Maybe they could send a delegation to Brussels for a week of talks and while there have a decent meal or two and do a little sightseeing - - you know, get a little culture.

I'm sure that the presence of such dignitaries in Brussels would get their attention and they could effectively explain their objections to any diversity, equity, inclusion, climate change, environmental concerns or other radical notions which we in the States are in the process of doing away with altogether.  And maybe, just maybe, convince these radicals the errors of their ways and come to their senses.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo                                                                          

 

MIddlemarch

                                                                 MIDDLEMARCH

George Eliot

Books for Bigots

I do love my subtitle "Books for Bigots".  It announces clearly what needs to be understood, that books, reading in general, is anathema to Bigots of all stripes and flavors.  I submit the following thesis:  If you do not read books, you are a default Bigot.  It can't be helped.

Middlemarch, as has been pronounced, now for several hundred years, is a marvelous book.  I have been living with my copy now for an entire summer.  In explanation, my reading habits are somewhat odd.  I have books on the main floor of my house which I am reading.  The issue I have on the first floor of my house is that I am reading a book but pick up another and get sidetracked.  Consequently, I am reading several books at once.  

My second floor reading is bedtime reading and the books that I have on the second floor are separate from the books I have on the first floor.  In addition,  I do my magazine reading on the second floor in a horizontal position.  My bedtime reading continues until I find myself falling asleep with a book in my hands.  This is a nightly occurrence and has become habitual.  

Middlemarch was a second floor reading or, as I say, bedtime reading.  My copy is a Signet Classic version of 823 pages.  I often see where people get caught up in reading a book and read it through all at once or nearly so.  What I find interesting is that when you spend an entire summer, as I did with Middlemarch, the book, the characters, the scenes, the setting, etc. become embedded in your mind so much more than if you take a day to read something and then go on to something else.  Dorothea Brooke, Tertius Lydagte, Rosamond Vincy, Nicolas Bulstrode, Edward Casaubon, Camden Farebrother, and the many others become your acquaintances over the summer which is not possible with a quick read.

I really have no critique of Middlemarch in that it has been the subject of literary criticism and academic discussions for a century and a half and I can add nothing to those discussions that would warrant any additional comments.  It is a book worth reading.  I know there are thousands of books in existence worth reading and a person can't read them all - - can't even read all the ones he or she wants to read.

What I will say is that George Eliot is a person I would have liked to know.  She clearly is a person of incites and observations of the human species and had the audacity to put these incites and observations into print.  During a person's daily activities, one does not often come across another person that merits further acquaintance.  Most of us are humdrum and without any particular aptitude that would warrant further acquaintance.  

This judgment of my fellow creatures may seem callous and unnecessary but the fact remains that most of the people we meet or interact with on a daily basis do not merit further acquaintance.  There is just nothing that warrants much time spent.  

George Eliot, otherwise known as Mary Ann Evans, was one of those people who have existed that made a difference in those who knew her and have read her.  It is unfortunate that the vast majority of people, English speaking people, Americans, Bigots of all stripes, will never know her or of her or care.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Middlesex II

  MIDDLESEX II

Jeffrey Eugenides

Books for Bigots

My reading is geared to Bigots.  Bigots consist of a vast multitude of people in this country who are illiterate in all respects except the ability to decipher script dealing with their very limited area of expertise.  Most of the folks of whom I refer spend the vast majority of their time mowing the yard or watching a football game.  These two activities are sure evidence of illiteracy.

Now Middlesex, the biography of a hermaphrodite (fictional presumably) is a book that should be required reading for any would-be Bigot.  The book vividly chronicles the life of a hermaphrodite, is not untasteful nor gruesome.  It does what appears to be a really good depiction of growing up as a girl and ending up as a man and how the person so growing up and the family and acquaintances of Calliope but now Cal adjust to the change.

Bigots have great difficulty believing, or wanting to believe, that other people may be different from them, have different needs and beliefs, and believe them to be Bigots which, indeed, they are.  We currently live in an environment when Bigotry is in the ascendance.  It is difficult to believe, but more difficult to understand, that with the level of knowledge available and its easy accumulation, that someone being different from the usual or the norm is to be castigated and not allowed to define him or her self.

The general run of Bigots appear to be religious, at least in the main.  Bigotry runs deep and periodically resurfaces as it is doing now and with it the espousal of religious principles as the rationale and justification for it.  I espouse one principle and one only when it comes to what a person may or may not be - - they are entitled to choose for themselves.  I have no business telling a person that they should declare themselves one thing or another to suit my preferences.

As I began, Middlesex is well written and gives the reader an understanding that most do not have before reading the book which, to me, is the purpose of any book worth reading.  Obviously there is some sexual activity, but it is not graphic nor included for any pornographic purpose, but really a necessary topic, and probably the most important one, for a person who is a hermaphrodite.

I can't think of a better book for a current version of a bigot to read and ponder.  It could have a wonderful effect on the understanding of a person who currently has none.  And, I apologize to anyone who is a hermaphrodite for talking about them, but hopefully I will be excused.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Those Bureaucrats!

 THOSE BUREAUCRATS!

Senator Ernst is once again belaboring bureaucrats; once again suggesting that bureaucrats are bad and we need to understand this once and for all and be rid of as many as possible.   Thank you Senator Ernst for pointing out the failures of our bureaucracy.  It has been some time since you last opined on the failures of bureaucrats and the necessity of keeping an eye on them, if not firing them en masse.

Some clarification is in order however.  I think the first thing we should do is to determine what a bureaucrat is - - come up with some sort of definition so we know what we are talking about with some specificity.    I expect that most of you, the reader, who reads this, works in an office.  This office is more than likely part of a business, corporate most likely, with many employees with jobs sitting at a desk and performing tasks that have been assigned.

If the situation in the above paragraph applies to you, you are a bureaucrat.  Now you may not be called a bureaucrat, but nevertheless you have the same role in the organization you work for as a person has in a government office - - doing the jobs that have been assigned, usually sitting at a desk in front of a computer or by a phone dealing with the public.  The difference is that you work at a private office and the bureaucrat, as Senator Ernst calls them, works in a government office.

Where you work determines what you are called and by whom.  It is most certain that Senator Ernst has a staff.  These people are bureaucrats.  The person writing her opinion pieces is a bureaucrat.  If you work in a private office performing the necessary functions for the company or organization you work for, you are a bureaucrat regardless of what you otherwise might call yourself.  If you work for Blue Shield or Wells Fargo in a large building with a large number of employees, you are a bureaucrat as surely as you are working for the Department of Labor  in Washington or the Transportation Department of the State of Iowa.  There is no difference: one works for a private company and one works for a government doing jobs that need to be done in order for the company or the agency in question to function as it is intended to function - - in one case to make money and in the other to serve the public.  

Senator Ernest digs through tons of files apparently to discover malfeasance in our bureaucracy.  She or her own personal bureaucrats, her staff, find some just as there is embezzlement from the local school, the dentist's office, or the  Moose Lodge.  It happens.  What is disturbing about Senator Ernest, her opinion piece's purpose appears to be in support of the idea that bureaucrats are bad, all bureaucrats for that matter; that they exist superficially and without much function and we should be rid of as many as possible as quickly as possible.

The principle behind Senator Ernst's opinion piece printed in the Newton Daily News, once again, must be the belief that the American public, her public, the people who voted for her or may vote for her in the future, are stupid.  It is difficult to find any other basis for her opinion piece to be presented to the public in the manner in which it is presented.   At the very least it is annoying and at worst, destructive.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

It's Gotta Stop

  IT'S GOTTA STOP

There have been recently numerous instances of people being put on leave or fired for expressing their opinions.   One has to be very careful when expressing an opinion that may be somewhat different than a prevailing one or one held by those in power.  Now, I'm not here to express an opinion about anything other than expressing an opinion so you can relax on that point.

The problem as I see it, is not having an opinion, but of expressing it.  There certainly should be a limit to what opinions should be expressed and which ones should not be.  Clearly when one is cognizant of the prevailing opinion, one should conform to that opinion or be quiet.  There are excellent reasons for this.

One is simple sociability.  We all have had the experience of being excluded from a group discussion when expressing an opinion not consistent with the currently fashionable one.  None of us like to be excluded from a social event simply for saying something out of favor with the majority.  But there are other more important considerations:  It's anti-capitalism.  I'm not saying that it is communistic, but it is detrimental in several respects.

First, it is detrimental to the work environment.  You don't want a lot of animosity in the workplace.  Employees have a tendency to get distracted from their job for which they get paid to do when diverse opinions are expressed at work.  It is especially detrimental when it results in fisticuffs or other disorderly behavior.

Second, if opinions are expressed of any kind by the staff, there will be customers who will not avail themselves of your services or products if they have a differing opinion strongly held.  It's bad for business.  This is annoying to your boss and it could result in your termination. 

Third, the last place you want odd and different opinions floating around in the halls and such is school houses.  Our school children are taxed enough with learning how to make a living and fitting in; they don't need to deal with adverse opinions that simply cause confusion and alienation among the adults they have to deal with. 

I know you think the having of an opinion is a right we all have, but letting others know what it is?  Not good - - bad things often result.  Forget the first amendment, the freedom of speech one, that isn't going to be much of a benefit if you have irritated a whole bunch of people including your boss simply by expressing an opinion.  You may not be thrown in jail for expressing an opinion, but it may result in other serious consequences.

It's interesting that words alone can get such a reaction, but clearly words have an effect that can have seriously detrimental effects to the person expressing them.  Religion has to be the prime example.  There was a time when expressing the wrong opinion got you burnt at the stake.  Now that would really hurt.  There were dunking until drowned and other seriously uncomfortable results as well, all the result of expressing opinions not generally held or acceptable by those in charge.

Mentioning historical events is not to cast dispersions on any particular set of people, either past or current; it is simply to illustrate the dangers of having an opinion, especially one not currently in favor.  You never know when the public may revert to previous behaviors when dealing with opinions expressed.

So, my unsolicited advice is, that if you have an opinion that is currently out of fashion, it may be to your benefit to withhold it from public expression.  Forget this first amendment thing that so many people rely on or your personal freedom or your whatnot, keep it to yourself for your own protection.  

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

 

White Culture

WHITE CULTURE

I'm reading a book by Ishmael Reed in which he discusses among other things American culture or as known by many, white  culture and that this is one of the many issues facing black, yellow, brown, and red people in this country because of the prevailing view, by white Americans, that we can not allow America to have a black, yellow, brown, or red culture - - that it is not American and every effort must be made to stop it from happening.

This has been and continues to be the underlying impetus for the current onslaught against DEI.  Now, I am not familiar with black, yellow, brown, or red culture for the very good reason that I am not black, yellow, brown, or red.  The only culture that I presume to know anything about is white culture.  Unfortunately, I don't appear to know much about that either.

The first issue would be that I'm not sure what they are talking about when they say white culture.  When I look around and take note of the people I see and converse with on a daily basis. white people mostly, it doesn't appear that our culture amounts to much.  What has occurred to me though is that without football we have no culture.  Football appears to be the extent of whatever culture we, as Americans, can claim.  

Clearly, other sports also play a part, but only secondarily.  Football appears to take up most of the time, thought, and emotion of the average citizen.  This would cause me to think that our culture is limited to that of a fan of some sport's team.  This would apply to all levels of sports from grade school to the pros with constant discussions of the abilities of various athletes, teams, and who is going to win.  Always who is going to win.  

I drive by movie theaters:  from what I can gather from the quick drive by is that the offerings are 95% movies made for children under ten; they have no content.  Then you have netflix, hulu, apple tv, Disney, youtube providing round the clock entertainment.  Being entertained is not culture.  Sitting in your living room watching a sporting event or netflix is not culture - - it is its antithesis.

So my question is what are we in fear of losing?  Will we be required to watch a show that has black, yellow, brown, or red actors in it.  They say baseball is losing fans.  Is that because they have baseball players that are black, yellow, brown and red?  Maybe so.  

But I am at a loss:  I can't see I would be losing much if I lost what purports to be white American culture.  Although many of us would have to find something to fill the time with activities other than football and that could be jolting.  With all the black people playing football, maybe football is black culture too.  Ever think of that?

But what can we do if we can't sit in front of the tv on an evening drinking beer and watching a game of some sort such as, let's say, pickle ball, sand volleyball, ax throwing, hot dog eating, cornhole, first grade golf, etc.?  After all, most of the people playing these games are white which must be examples of American or white culture; the culture we are terrified to lose.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo