Scary Words

 SCARY WORDS

Nothing like scary words to cause one to fear and tremble.  I know that is true with me.  At the top of the list is that word "diversity" and how germane a discussion of it is at this time.   It truly is a frightening word and with a connotation that brings nothing but conflict and unease.  Just look at the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians who have spent centuries trying to liquidate one another or the Hutus and the Tutsis where the Hutus came close to annihilating the Tutsis.

Now we, in the United States, although escaping mass slaughter, at least up to now, are ramping up an anti-diversity campaign.  Long over do, I might add.  As we can see from history, diversity causes massive slaughter and if we can nip it in the bud, it is possible that we can avoid killing people to resolve it.  Instead we can begin, as our legislature is attempting to do, to persuade people not to be different from the norm of middle America for which we are so proud.  They are legislating sameness.

Diversity, to one not giving it much thought, is no big deal, right?  So what if somebody thinks, acts, or speaks differently from me?  So what?  Well, it's a major issue because it says to me that I and my beliefs mean nothing to the person who has different beliefs and beliefs are everything right?  My beliefs give me meaning, they cause me to act in certain ways, they are important in creating community and when someone tells me they don't believe what I believe and they think I'm foolish for believing or acting the way I do, I just can't tolerate it.  Why do you think that the catholics and the protestants spent the better part of a century slaughtering each other? 

Now America, which is populated by all sorts of people from all sorts of places with all sorts of beliefs and behaviors has managed to escape these major slaughters.  There are just too many different kinds of people here in the United States to get the number of people together to quelch it.  For instance, it is difficult to get a protestant to get rid of Catholics when the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists will not go along with it knowing full well they will be next.

The same applies to race and language.  Somehow we have the idea that this country is for white people primarily and we have made efforts to make it so.  We got rid of the people that were here before Europeans came, we forget that people speaking Spanish were in New Mexico before the Pilgrims were in Massachusetts, that this country has approximately 42 million people who speak Spanish most of which have ancestors not in Europe but native America, that 350 languages are actually spoken here, and that the black people who were brought here were not thought particularly human and treated as such.

So one will have to conclude that the effort to get rid of "diversity" in one form or another has a long and enduring history here in the United States, but has always failed.  Our current Iowa legislature is renewing the effort of exterminating whatever new diversity they can identify.  One has to applaud the historical continuity here even though all previous efforts have failed and no doubt will fail again.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

A Simplication

 A SIMPLIFICATION

My day-to-day interactions with my fellow citizens, normally at the Jasper County Courthouse, has led me to believe that the English language has shrunk magnificently.  Life is so much simpler with a smaller vocabulary, don't you think?  But this can be overdone.

English is probably one of the most remarkable languages on the planet, with the ability to express the most subtle expressions and consequently much too complex for many of our fellow citizens.  What has occurred is a drastic simplification in our daily usage.  This is especially true of adjectives.  

Now for you who may have missed that day in class when adjectives were illustrated, an adjective is a word that in some way modifies a noun.  What I experience in conversation with defendants and other participants in the courthouse drama, the number of adjectives has been reduced to one.  Nothing more simple.  That adjective is f - - - ing.

In some instances, within a rather long and tedious conversation when attempting to elicit facts from a defendant, family member, or witness the adjective is used with every noun articulated and often used as the noun which it is meant to modify as in f - - king f - - k.   This phrase is rather common actually.

Most of us are in favor of simplification, but this seems to be a little bare. Sometimes we do need more to get the nuances of the event for which the criminal charges have been brought, but, alas, that would take several additional adjectives. 

There was a time when the use of this adjective would get you disowned by your parental units.  Not so now.  It is so prevalent that any novelty is long gone.  This is not to say that one should approve of this adjective or expressions that contain either f - - king of f - - k, and there are always those memories of how a teacher, preacher, parent, or relative would react if this particular adjective would somehow flow from your vocal cords. Not good.  But those days are gone.

The legislature is in session again and as normal, thinking about sex and books and such.  Maybe they could bring to the floor some suggestions regarding adjectives.  They spend much of their time fixated on what we, the public, are thinking and doing and they should realize, being adults with a modicum of education, that the language people use affects not only their understanding, but their behavior.

In conclusion, you will have to make up your own mind on how the English language should be used and the range of adjectives that should be available to provide meaning in your everyday conversations.  It would seem to me that limiting oneself to one adjective causes unnecessary ambiguity but apparently commonly thought  sufficient.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Way of All Flesh

 THE WAY OF ALL FLESH

Samuel Butler

Books for Bigots

Some books are just too enjoyable to recommend to a Bigot.  The idea that Bigots would be reading THE WAY OF ALL FLESH and trying to absorb an entire world different from their own, is simply not a feasible thought.  I haven't enjoyed a book as much as this in a long time.  Once again the English have excelled in writing novels that entertain, instruct, and vividly portray a world with which we are not familiar but certainly ought to be (and possibly emulate).

The book was published posthumously in 1903.   Butler must have realized anything that good would cause him immediate problems he really didn't need while alive.  Books are funny that way; they can cause the author all sorts of problems, especially good books.  It can be the authorities, it can be the clan of bigots always patrolling, it can be religious folk.  It has always been that what one thinks is what  gets one in trouble, especially if published.

A person can be just as obnoxious as possible, can be mean and  nasty, but you know - - live and let live; but write a book or publish thoughts different from the current ones, you are in trouble.  This is Bigotry as we know it - - the war against thought - - the inability to accept the fact that someone else may not agree with you or have a different opinion which would require you to question your own opinion.   And in the case of THE WAY OF ALL FLESH, it being an accurate representation of a particular society at a particular time there is something in it for all Bigots to despise, especially in that it is an accurate depiction rather than some comic book version.

The narrator of this story, the teller of the tale, is quite thoughtful in a very accommodating fashion in both first person commentary and example - an author obviously well-acquainted with most human foibles and who is not opposed to illustrating them in great detail.  The hero of our story from birth and a miserable childhood through Cambridge and ordination and then into a series of  unfortunate experiences, including the gaol,  with a proclivity of making really poor  decisions, and finally to a time of wealth unearned, is a rather interesting fellow as you watch him get bounced around by fate and the characters he meets and interacts with.  Of course, the inability to make decent decisions rather than to commit simple impulsive acts gave Mr. Butler the opportunity to relate the adventures and descriptions of life in London that he did and is a rather good technique of enlivening a story .

Once you get past the misery of growing up in a rectory with really awful parents, it becomes a book with plenty of adventure and description of life in England in all its flavors  Again, though, I refuse to recommend this book to Bigots for the simple reason they don't deserve to read it.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

A Cultivation

 A CULTIVATION

A rather lengthy article appeared in the Des Moines Register on the efforts the Des Moines Public Schools are making in improving k-12 education. They have apparently had various committees working on this project for a lengthy period of time.  Being a criminal defense attorney who has a clear understanding of the level of education of much of our population from daily contact at the courthouse, I can only applaud any effort in increasing our general level of learning.

The article broke down the five areas, or I should say five cultivations, to be addressed in this five year improvement plan:

1.  cultivating equity and excellence

2.  cultivating well-being

3.  cultivating transformative talent

4.  cultivating organizational effectiveness

5.  cultivating community and collaboration

There must have been and continues to be a vast effort within the Des Moines Public Schools in search of educational improvement which, of course, must be applauded.  I do have one suggestion however:  teach them a syllogism.  I can't recall if I have ever, and I mean ever, come across a defendant who had any knowledge of or had ever heard the term "syllogism".

As Aristotle said around 350 BC or so:  "All men are mortal.  Socrates is a man.  Therefore, Socrates is mortal."  One could bring that forward a couple of thousand years and add to it:  "People who commit crimes are criminals.  I committed a crime.  Therefore I am a criminal."  See how easy that is and one has to admit that knowing what a syllogism is and how to construct one might not be such a bad thing for our children to know.  Or how about logical fallacies such as "false dilemma" where the claim is there are only two options in a given situation when there may be many such as "America: Love it or leave it" or "Are you a Republican or a Democrat".

I'm sorry, but cultivating equity and excellence or well-being doesn't cut it.  First, what do you mean by cultivating?  Second, once you agree on what it is, how does it apply?  Third, what do you consider equity, excellence, or well-being?  Fourth, once you have come to some agreement on these terms how do you measure them?  Fifth, are the students and their families presumed to have the same idea of what these things are?  Not a word about syllogisms or false dilemmas.

I say, let's forget all this cultivating but rather teach these kids a few things they can use in their adult lives, things which actually may be of a benefit to them as they try to navigate the world they live in, and therefore,  enhance their well-being. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

It Just Isn't Right

 IT JUST ISN'T RIGHT

The destruction in LA from the fires is vast and will affect thousands of people adversely.  The most affected will be those who depended upon the wealthy to employ them tending their residences when they themselves are out and about in the world doing whatever they do when out and about in the world.

A house or what is left of it, the rubble and debris, is toxic.  The rubble and debris, the soil it sits on, the air surrounding it, the water flowing into the Pacific, are all toxic.  It is a poisonous environment not fit for human habitation.  And, of those who have lost their homes, the question is surely "How did this happen to me?"

We, in the Christian world, have adopted the ancient Hebrew vision that the world was made for us.  We, the human species, are the reason there is a world in the first place.   We screwed up the works by eating an apple, but nevertheless the main premise did not change - - the world and all that is in it, is here for our benefit.

So, when a major catastrophe occurs, such as the fires in LA, it is contrary to the way things ought to be.  It just isn't right.  Now if you are not involved in the catastrophe, but looking at it from a distance, unharmed yourself, one possible explanation, the usual one, is that those losing their homes are being punished.  This line of thought has a magnificent and lengthy career in the history of mankind.  Unfortunately, it has no basis in fact nor did it ever.

The pile of rubble left after the fire is the result of the person or persons who constructed the edifice and accumulated the fixtures and artifacts for their own personal satisfaction.  If the rubble is present, the people who owned the objects which became the rubble, are responsible.  This is not punishment; you don't get punished for wanting and building a really great residence in a fabulous neighborhood, with interesting neighbors and amenities, but you are responsible for the debris that is left behind.  It is your debris; you are the reason for the toxic environment that now exists rather than the idyllic environment it once was.

In addition, it is not the fault of the city or county governments; it is not the fault of the state or federal governments.  If you had not built or purchased a house where you did, you may very well still have a house.  It is no one's obligation to protect you from your own decisions.  I feel bad for you, but I don't feel responsible for your loss.  

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Is It an Opinion?

 IS IT AN OPINION?

The articles that I have written over the last year are called "opinion".  They do contain opinion, my opinion in the various forms it may present itself.  I have heard from several that they do not share my opinion, with, presumably, the inference that they do not approve of me.

I am merely suggesting that  on issues of the day, things that may or may not affect you directly, actions of our governments, our way of doing things, whether our lives are  satisfactory, one would do well to form one's own opinion.  What I find normally is that most of us don't have opinions, we simply adopt other, ready-made opinions that we hear on TV, on the radio, on Facebook or other social media.  I do make an effort to have my own opinion and since it is my opinion it  may be different from the current opinion on just about any subject.  Simply saying you agree with another person's opinion or don't agree, is not the same as actually having an opinion.

If you were to ask the person with whom you are speaking, how did you come to that opinion, the conversation pretty quickly slides into absurdities clearly indicating the person holding the opinion has  no knowledge of  facts supporting such an opinion.

Yes, I do have bias - - clearly; but we all do.  Bias certainly affects the opinions I hold and bias affects the people you, as individuals, listen to to obtain the opinions that you adopt.  Nothing unusual about any of this.  In my daily conversations, there are few opinions that appear to be original in any sense.  One can not enter a conversation about any topic currently being discussed on the air or over the internet that can in any way be considered originating with the person expressing an opinion about it.  If you consider yourself a Republican, you will watch programs consistent with the views currently in vogue with the Republicans.  If you consider yourself a Democrat, you will watch programs consistent with the views currently in vogue with the Democrats.

When I send a piece to the paper, I do not do it with the purpose of convincing you to have the same opinion as I do; I am merely suggesting that you have an opinion of your own and not simply grab some opinion off the TV screen that is consistent with your already possessed opinions, for your already possessed opinions have the same origin - - the TV screen.  

Having an opinion of your own does require some thought which is a major factor in not having one - - why give it thought when you can quickly tune in to a talk show where opinions are flying by so fast all you have to do is reach out and grab one.  Most of these opinions are glued to outrage and easy to grab onto. 

A second requisite for having an opinion is knowing something about the subject for which opinions are being proffered..  Most of us don't know enough facts to have an opinion on most subjects being discussed and we are not going to spend the time to find any.  But I certainly have a right to have an opinion, and by golly, I'm going to have one and I'm going to get really worked up over it whether I know anything about it or not.

When someone asks you for your opinion on a current topic, have you ever responded by saying "I don't have an opinion because I don't know enough about it to have an opinion?  I personally don't say that nearly as often as I ought. I really don’t know enough about many things to think I should have an opinion about them and in the course of a day I'm as guilty of it as anyone.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Paradise

 PARADISE

Toni Morrison

Books for Bigots

I've really got my work cut out for me on this one in The Books for Bigot series.  As I have said numerous times, but bears repeating, a first effort must be made to convince potential bigoted readers to pick up a book even with the unarticulated feeling, that a book in hand is actually necessarily a first step toward actually opening it to determine the number of pages one would have to commit to reading, and oh my gosh - the time involved.

For those who are not familiar with books, nor the reading of them, it is often thought that if one is to open a book and start reading it, the book must be read through to the end whether one likes the book or not.  To the bigot, all books have this entry problem, the supposition that once you begin a book, you have to finish it.  Not so.

Often a book is picked up, purchased, or what not with a particular intent to learn something specific about a particular subject.  This is not the case with fiction which I write about in its relation to the world of bigotry.  A novel's purpose has always been and its effect has always been, to give a view of other people and their lives, or, more broadly, society in general:  novels allow you to realize that there are other people on the planet not like you and who have no intention of being like you; and alternatively, there are people like you  who have issues to resolve like you, the daily issues you may need to resolve in yourself and reading about them may actually give you a sense of comfort or ideas on how to resolve some of these that present themselves to you..  

Now PARADISE, written by a Nobel Prize winner for literature, Toni Morrison, a black American, is a book about a group of black people, after the failure of Reconstruction, not being welcome in exiting communities as they travel west, create their own town in the middle of nowhere Oklahoma - - all black people with the exception of the convent already present in the middle of nowhere.  In addition it is about the ladies of the convent, pretty much self-supporting, and either runaways or rejects - - only the remnants of a convent really- definitely a different group of people from the new town makers.

The first pages of the book relate the action of the townsfolk (men) driving to the convent and killing all (women) that lived there.  The very last chapters finish the killing and the aftermath.  What occurs in between, and takes up most of the book, is how the townsfolk, the subjects of slavery, jim crow, segregation, and other forms of hatred and subjection came to act the same as the white society they had fled several generations previously.

As I said in  the beginning, this is a tough book for a bigot since the subject of the book is bigotry; it's about them and it also clearly accepts the fact that bigotry is not limited to white people - - there was clearly bigotry amongst the people of the community based on how dark you were. This should be comforting to white folk - - knowing, "Hey we aren't the only bigots".

So once we gain an understanding that bigotry knows no boundaries, or I should say creates them.  What chance does a bigot have in finishing the book or even advancing far enough to get the point.  Not good, I would say.  But hey, give it a chance.  You, as a bigot, can realize that bigotry escapes all boundaries, which realization can either comfort you in the knowledge that there are many of you - - all different kinds of you or, demoralize you with the understanding that you, yourself, may be the subject of bigotry and artificially created boundaries.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo