Wandering Stars

                                                     WANDERING STARS

Tommy Orange

Books for Bigots

Having read Wandering Stars it is necessary for me to relate it to the category of Books for Bigots.  I think this book would actually agree with many bigots with whom I am familiar and this for an unorthodox reason.  They would understand it, maybe not consciously, but understand it nevertheless. 

Tommy Orange is Cheyenne which we get from his pronouncements in the narrative.  The place is Oakland, California and the characters are of various tribal origins.  This is an Indian, Native American, Native family coping with being such.  How we are to relate to him and his family and others of Indian, Native American, Native extraction is not clear.  In one chapter the matter is discussed and determined that it should be Native.  There is some discussion as well as to whether this appellation be used similarly to "nigger" in black culture where a black person can use the word but a white person can not.

The book deals with the Native American view of their current circumstances and the basis for that - - white people.  It is no secret among white people that Native Americans were here before us white people, black people, and Asian people.  The discussion deals with white people and the fact that the land that once belonged to Native Americans no longer does. Interestingly, I recall no reference of any kind to Asian Americans or Hispanic Americans and very minimally to Black Americans.

Being a white person myself, I don't take it personally that other people feel that white people are responsible for the life they currently lead.  I'm willing to accept that in part, not totally.  My view is that as an individual though, I'm responsible for my own life regardless of what has been done to me or not done to me and I won't  blame my ancestors, my race, my nationality, or others not the same on who I am or have become. 

But it is clear to anyone who has any historical knowledge of any kind that white people destroyed the Native American life as it was lived when we got here.  I admit this.  However, it wasn't me and I personally didn't do anything to anybody.  But I understand how a Native American, a Black American, a Hispanic American, or an Asian American might think about white people.  We, as a race, have made a lot of enemies throughout the past few centuries and we, including Bigots, understand this.

We, white folks, did not individualize the people that we either enslaved, persecuted, or rounded up on reservations.  It is rather presumptuous to require others to determine what kind of person I am and what I think before deciding what they think about me as a white person.  We white people certainly have never concerned ourselves with such an inquiry and it is rather presumptuous to demand it of them.

So, if you are a Bigot you have  this feeling, well founded, that if Native, Black, Hispanic, or Asian Americans separately or together ever got to be in charge, we, White Americans, could be in trouble and not fare so well in a world we have made but in which we are not in control.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Not Good for Business

 NOT GOOD FOR BUSINESS

Previously I have commended President Trump on his efforts to increase the business of criminal defense attorneys. It is appreciated.  However, we have a small bump in the road here - - killing suspected drug runners.  This is contrary to the monetary gains that we are to expect otherwise. 

We now just kill people who are suspects.  As I say, this is contrary to the normal process of giving people a chance to hire an attorney and it diminishes our income.  We can still say we are at war.  In war time, the number of people coming under fire is considerably higher than in normal times.  We have been at war against drugs now for several decades and it has been quite a windfall for the criminal defense bar and we just can't, of a sudden, go around killing people we suspect of having drugs for delivery or this source of income will disappear.  

I think we need to find a way to allow them, the suspects, to hire an attorney before we shoot them; at least start the process of legal representation.  This would be a reasonable compromise.  It is really not too much to ask, is it?  You can always shoot them, that's the easy part.  A suspect's attorney would then at least have worked up a few legal fees; you know, like calling the prosecutor a couple of times, trips to the jail to see the suspect, maybe a court hearing or two.

The government can always claim an attempt to escape as a reason for shooting somebody.  This usually works and the public will accept this is a satisfactory result.  After all they were a suspect, and hence, probably guilty of something so they deserved getting shot anyhow and therefore no big deal.  But let's give this some additional thought.  There are always more ways than one to accomplish some well deserved outcome.  It is true that the War on Drugs can reach new levels of accomplishment with killing people just suspected of dealing drugs.  It is a tried and true method originating in the Philippines with their president, Rodrigo Duterte.  They killed thousands of suspects there.  It was very efficient I might add, but a disaster for the criminal defense bar.  We have precedent, but some dithering shouldn't hinder the process.

Since most people who use illegal drugs provide them to others simply so they can afford to buy more for themselves, we can without too much of an extrapolation  say that anyone who uses illegal drugs is either a drug dealer, has been a drug dealer, or will be a drug dealer in the future.  Hence, anyone who uses is a suspect and eligible to be shot.

Once again this is a perspective from the criminal defense bar realizing that some may find my suggestions and comments contrary to current views of acceptable behavior.  I'm simply suggesting that if shooting suspected drug dealers does become normal practice, there will be people who will not benefit and this should be a consideration when weighing the pros and cons.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Gas Pump

A Gathering of Old Men

A GATHERING OF OLD MEN

Ernest Gaines

Books for Bigots

In my quest for appropriate BOOKS FOR BIGOTS, I have read A GATHERING OF OLD MEN.  It's a simple book really and one which most any bigot will understand.  Unfortunately, for the BIGOTS within the book, they were not allowed to lynch anyone for killing Beau who in the minds of many, deserved killing but was a white guy and hence, not killable by a black person. 

Taking place in the heart of Louisiana Cajun country a black guy kills a white guy.  This would normally result in a lynching which in this case was certainly a possibility.  What saved the situation was that the brother of the deceased played football for LSU, was up for all-american and his partner in the backfield was a black guy who was as talented as Gil.  Gil and Cal were known as Salt and Pepper by the adoring fans of Louisiana football.  Obviously. a new phenomena in the Southeast Conference.  Gil, the white guy and brother of Beau, would not agree to lynching the black guy claiming to have killed Beau.  The question of whether or not it was based on some idea of proper behavior or on the fact that he would not be selected as all-american if it were to occur, especially if he were involved, was not answered.

I remember very well my years at SMU in Dallas in the 1960s with Hayden Frye the football coach.  Hayden recruited the first black player in the Southwest Conference, Jerry Levias, who went on to have a successful professional career.  Interestingly enough, Hayden was shortly thereafter fired.  It is not often that a successful, very successful, football coach is fired. Makes you wonder, doesn't it.

Being from Iowa, having attended the University of Iowa on a couple of occasions both while Hayden was the football coach there, I am fully aware that Hayden was hired at Iowa and became one of the better football coaches in the history of that University.  Hayden was known nationally and many of his assistants went on to become successful coaches themselves. So when I read A GATHERING OF OLD MEN and a major factor in the non-lynching of any of the old men gathered with their worn out old shotguns as old as themselves, was the fact that the brother of the deceased, told his family that if they lynched the black man responsible, he would not become all-american, the lynching did not occur.  And besides the black football player  who he relied on to block for him might not be so willing if he just came from a lynching a black guy the day before.  It might not work out so well.  They needed to beat Ole Miss.

The book acknowledged that things had changed; violence was no longer a requirement for BIGOTS; you could be a BIGOT without it.  But the racial thing was still there and not to disappear.  Any BIGOT reading this book, acknowledging the fact that most BIGOTS don't read, would find it disconcerting how BIGOTRY was somewhat ameliorated; it wasn't to disappear, but unfortunately black people were no longer being lynched.  

The BIGOTS in the book were clearly nasty people.  I think the author, Mr. Gaines, was somewhat too kind and has mischaracterized the human race by suggesting only nasty people are BIGOTS.  It has been a fixture of American life that otherwise nice, well-behaved, and loving people are often BIGOTS and  are not nice, well-behaved, and loving when it comes to people of different color.  It is not always the Luke Wills of the world that are the BIGOTS and the author tends to be a little too forgiving; hopefully not simply for commercial reasons to make us white people feel better about ourselves and to buy the book.

So, in my quest for BOOKS FOR BIGOTS, A Gathering of Old Men, is a questionable choice.  It is an easy read, but the old black guys gathering with their shotguns to confront a lynching party of white, drunk BIGOTS would lead one to believe that the typical BIGOT would find the book less than satisfactory.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo 

It's the Debt

 IT'S THE DEBT

We speak of debt as something we don't want.  It can cause problems; one's life can be seriously disrupted by debt; it controls our life; we have to make money to pay money for the money we borrow to buy things.  All very simple really.

But if you put it into a larger context such as the debt existing in the United States which according to those in the know is multiple trillions, the effects can be rather startling.  If you look at debt as an economic concept rather than a personal matter, one may gain some clarity as to its effect  on our personal lives.

When the bank loans you $50,000 to buy a new car, the bank has created $50,000 in money that did not exist before they loaned that money to you.  The bank has created $50,000.  If the household debt in the United States is $18,400,000,000,000 which has been suggested, there has been $18,400,000,000,000 money created by lending institutions that did not exist prior to the lending transactions.  

That $18,400,000,000,000 exists as money.  Somebody has it.  You borrowed the money to buy something and paid someone $18,400,000,000,000 for the items you purchased.  That amount of money exists somewhere and is controlled by somebody.  That money was simply created by us, the borrowers.  Those who now have that $18,400,000,000,000 are indeed rich.  We, the borrowers, have made many people very rich indeed.

If all this money were to be repaid tomorrow, the country would have $18,400,000,000,000 less than it did before.  That money would simply disappear; it would be gone; poof!  Could our society, our country, continue to operate if suddenly $18,400,000,000,000 disappeared.  Would you be able to buy anything?  Would the companies and people that make these things be able to sell anything?  Would it be 1929 again?

Why doesn't the national debt get reduced?  Every generation of politician says their goal is to reduce the national debt.  It never gets reduced; it always increases.  The greater the national debt the greater the amount of money in the economy.  With less debt, with less money, people will complain, people will go broke, people will not be able to buy stuff.  Our politicians do not want this; they will be blamed and rightly so.  They would be responsible for less money rattling around in the economy available to you and me to buy stuff that we don't need and could easily do without.

So you will have to make up your mind that even if debt affects you adversely personally, its effect on us as a people and our country may be entirely something different.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

SNAP

SNAP

As a followup on our household debt discussion, it would be worthwhile to take a look at SNAP officially known as "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program".  The article to which I refer indicates that 42,000,000 Americans use SNAP to provide food for themselves and their families.  

The same article refers to the United States as the richest of nations.  There seems to be a disconnect here somewhere.  If household debt is 18,400,000,000,000 and 42,000,000 Americans are relying on government assistance for food, how does it translate into being rich?  Just saying!

We are told we are rich; we are the greatest, wealthiest, most prosperous nation ever seen.  We all believe this because the statements confirming this are continuous and have been given us our entire lives.  At the same time we spend almost a trillion dollars in the defense budget - - you know, building another aircraft carrier that can get blown out of the water by any sort of missile at any time.  We have to be rich, don't we, if we are the greatest and have the most aircraft carriers?  But what about food?

Now don't call me unduly pessimistic or of simply trying to ruin your day, but once in a while we ought to look around and make an effort to comprehend our world and what it means for us and our descendents.  It just might be that things are not what others say they are and the people in charge are not who we think they are. 

Maybe we should pay attention once in a while!  Maybe we should ask a question once in a while!  I do pose one possibility, and it does often seem more than a possibility, that our elected representatives really don't represent the people who elect them, they represent the people who give them money.  This seems to be the case here in Iowa:  our national representatives appear to represent Trump, not us,  and our state representatives appear to represent Reynolds, not us.  When our elected representatives come back home for the purpose of justifying what they have done rather than asking us what they can do to make our lives a little better, it should be clear who they are actually representing - - not us.

I'm not saying that this matter of representation is the reason that we have $18,400,000,000,000 in household debt and 42,000,000 receiving food stamps, but it is certainly something that should be considered and be given some thought.  It wouldn't seem to me that we, as a nation, are particularly rich.  There are certainly many people here that are rich and there are many who have an income that qualifies them in the minds of many as being rich, but that doesn't necessarily mean we are a rich nation.  The facts seem to be contrary.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

 

 

$18,400,000,000,000

 $18,400,000,000,000

This is the number that an article this past week used to describe the household debt in the United States.  Presuming that it could be off a dollar or two, it remains a rather significant number.  Our household debt has reached trillions, not millions, not billions.  So what you say is the significance of that?

This is a significant number; it has meaning.  We are a society that operates on debt.  Corporate America a long time ago learned that it can sell only so much stuff if people spend only what they have; hence it has created a method by which people can buy stuff without the money to buy it, with only the promise to pay over time. 

The method corporate America developed was to create companies that provide the money to buy stuff you can't afford to buy outright.  This too is a profit making enterprise - - the profit is called interest which in turn becomes investment income and this generation of money without production has created a whole new field of study - - "finance capitalism".  

In order to buy something without the money to do so, one eventually must pay additional money for the same product which often, as one can quickly realize, may double the amount of the cost of the product purchased.  A whole lot of money is going to companies that don't produce anything.  They are siphoning off billions of dollars from our national income by creating a way to allow us to have stuff we can't afford and probably don't need and to go into debt, and for many of us, for the remainder of our lives.

The organizations that provide the money to buy stuff do not produce anything of value.  They don't make shovels or stoves, they simply are formed for the purpose of providing a way for you to buy more stuff.  This has become necessary for the reason that millions of people are involved in making the stuff that you can not afford to buy, and without debt most of the stuff made would not be sold and the people who make the stuff would not have a job or an income and would be unable to buy the stuff they make or other stuff made by other people.  Money would, in effect, disappear.  

The question becomes:  Can we as a country or a society survive without debt?  Is it required that you and I buy stuff we can't afford for our country to remain intact and what we think of as being prosperous?  Is buying stuff we can't afford a necessary element of living in a modern society, ours in particular?  Are we really prosperous if we owe a lot of money and have to spend our days making money to pay for all the stuff that we have the use of?

The answer, of course, is yes; it is necessary.  We are judged by what we have; this is a requirement and one that is made clear to us continually.  We are not only judged by what we own, but what we have the use of.  We have the use of the car we don't own.  The car can be repo'ed.  We don't own the car until we don't owe money for it and by that time it will have little value.  We don't own the house we live in: it can be taken from us by the company that loaned us the money to buy it.  Not everyone is in debt, very true!  But if we owe, in total, $18,400,000,000,000, someone surely is.

The debt we have personally and collectively is significant; it defines us; it determines our lives; it makes us who we are. The church, the government, the organizations we belong to do not control our lives, our debt does. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo