Love Medicine

 LOVE MEDICINE

Louise Erdrich

Books for Bigots

In my quest for Books for Bigots, I have read Love Medicine by Louise Erdrich.  I thought maybe life on the rez would be a topic that might appeal to Bigots.  However, that thought was quickly dispersed as my reading progressed.

Life on the Rez is clearly the result of the white takeover of the American continent.  The Rez as reflected in the book is merely one little nook in the landmass of North America, but it reflects the life of the Indians inhabiting that little nook of real estate and it is not a pleasant picture.  Now this is the problem for any Bigot attempting to read the book; it clearly points the finger at us white folks.  This would not be something that a Bigot would be able to tolerate.

Bigots are not to blame for anything; for fault in human character is the result of the person who carries the fault.  A fault is a moral failure and we all know that moral failures are character defects in the person reflecting them; hence, nobody's fault but the person who has them.  We, meaning white people, are not to blame.  This is the attitude that seems to prevail with the Bigots with whom I am familiar.

Being a white guy myself, I have a difficult time in personalizing the experiences of the characters in Love Medicine, or for that matter, the whole milieu of reservation life  The reservation is a life apart and not a very attractive one as portrayed by the author who, as an Indian, is well qualified to reflect on the issues inherent in growing up on the Rez.  I appreciate that I now have an understanding that I did not previously have.

Ms. Erdrich does not cast blame, she merely illustrates.  This is how things are.  How things are is the purpose of a novel; novels are illustrations of life current and past.  And what Bigots such as our in situs legislative literary critic Brad Zaun, fail to understand is that books such as Love Medicine presume the critic's ignorance of life on the Rez and with the further presumption that such knowledge can only be beneficial to a person such as Mr. Zaun who sits in a legislative body and purports to make the laws that govern our behavior.

Now we know that our presumptions are merely that, presumptions; but more likely they are simply wishful thinking on our part that our legislators would actually have some idea of the world around them and take the knowledge so acquired into consideration when they pass the laws that they pass.  I know this is asking for some thought rather than simply reaction against something that can be targeted as naughty or bad or simply immoral in the eyes of the Bigot so considering, but really!  We need some actual thought when passing legislation.

So, even though we technically do not have any reservations in Iowa, we do have the Meskwaki settlement, which I'm sure would have some similarity to the Rez as pictured in Love Medicine and the characters reflected.  In conclusion, it would seem a book to spend a few hours with especially for a Bigot. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Grant's Pass v. Johnson

 GRANT'S PASS V. JOHNSON

This is a US Supreme Court case and one which has made the news recently where the Court has held that homeless people living in public places can be removed by the municipality.  In other words, cities and towns are now allowed to remove homeless people from wherever they may be within the city limits.

To understand the decision, one must first know that the court in a much earlier ruling held that a status can not be punished; it is referred to as the Robinson case where the court ruled that it was cruel and unusual punishment to simply punish someone for being an addict; or as it was described a "status".  For instance, this would mean that you could not punish someone for being black for that would be punishing status, although they certainly didn't go that far.

What the court in Grant's Pass has done is declare that homelessness is not a status and so acts done by the homeless such as camping on a sidewalk can be criminalized; after all they may not be the only people camping on the sidewalk or in some other public place such as a family watching an eclipse or a protester protesting some injustice.  The case was brought under the Eighth Amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, you know, such things as burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel, dissection - - historical punishments like that.  Our founding fathers didn't much care for the idea of torture as punishment and therefore thought it might be a good idea to prohibit it.

So what the Court has done in Grant's Pass is to determine that putting someone in jail for camping on a sidewalk is not putting someone in jail for being homeless, but for camping on the sidewalk.  Now, of course, this logic is impeccable; how can you describe a Supreme Court decision in any other terms?  What's even more satisfying is that when you arrest a homeless person who has been able to accumulate enough property to actually survive out of doors without an actual abode, the property they have accumulated is either confiscated by the arresting authorities or taken by other homeless people to add to their own accumulated property.  In addition, the person being arrested and charged with the crime of trespass or whatever, will now have a fine, court costs, and jail fees none of which will be paid and hence cause the person being arrested to lose their driver's license if they actually were to have one since Iowa, and probably other States, take your drivers' license if you owe the State money and can't pay. 

The Court has simply recognized what most of us have already recognized: these people are simply nuisances and require management.  People with nice suburban houses don't want them around complicating things or peeing in their backyard.  After all, who wants some homeless person, loitering about either asking for money or looking pathetic - - not necessary.  At least in jail they will have food and a bed.  After all, what more could a person want or really need in life anyway.

So there you have it folks, our courts are coming to the rescue of us: the decent, law-abiding, tax-paying, home-owning people of America and we should applaud their efforts.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Literary Critic

  THE LITERARY CRITIC

Due to certain feedback, designating Iowa Senator Brad Zaun as our senatorial literary critic requires an explanation.  Senator Zaun publicly denigrated a published work by Maia Kobabe.  The book is titled GENDER QUEER and the Senator proclaimed it disgusting.

In attempting to analyze the Senator's literary analysis of the novel as "disgusting", one must keep in mind the Senator's frame of reference.  Frames of reference are often a beginning point for analysis and in the Senator's case, most appropriately.  In that the Senator has become one of the Iowa's Senate more notable literary interventionists, his views on what is acceptable and not acceptable in civil society should begin any commentary.

The Senator has not only approved, but, been a significant factor, in the past two years of legislative activity which includes book banning, restricting or eliminating diversity programs, regulating educational content,  correct bathroom protocol, etc.    These activities pretty well sum up the Senator's frame of reference.

To begin, Maia Kobabe is obviously a foreign name.  Now, to the Senator's mind a foreign name is one not derived from English, German, Scottish, Irish, Polish,  Italian languages. Other lesser known derivations of European languages will sneak in occasionally.  But clearly any name coming from the continent of Africa is foreign and the name Kobabe is certainly African of some sort.  Which sort is not important to our Senator.

Secondly, to our Senator's mind, gender issues are either the work of the devil or a communist plot.  And we all know his position on "queer".  The Senator has declared the book "disgusting".  This appears to be the extent of his literary criticism.  One would think that, as a literary critic, one could go into a little more detail and give us a basis for his opinion.  Of course, this would entail reading the novel - an exercise clearly beyond the Senator's capabilities.

We have a really good example here of judging a book without reading it which certainly saves time and effort.  The basis for the Senator's opinion is the title of the book and the name of the author.  Both are clearly un-American and un-Iowan which gives our literary critic license to dismiss the book as "disgusting"  viewing the title as disgusting and the author's name as extremely unorthodox. 

It really is a very good shorthand way of literary critique - - determining the quality of the work by the title and the name of the author.  I'm sure the Senator did not think this up on his own since this sort of analysis has been around as long as there have been books and once again is becoming a popular method of determining the value of a novel.

We can only hope that the Senator does not relax in his efforts of understanding our current literature.  It is important that we have people who will consider books as proper subjects of examination and critique and our Senator is setting such a good example that we need to applaud his efforts.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Sniff, Sniff!

 SNIFF, SNIFF!

There doesn't appear to be any valid reason why commentary and discussion can not occur over decisions of the Iowa Supreme Court.  Probably very few people other than the bar read Supreme Court decisions even though these decisions actually affect the citizens of Iowa more directly than just about any other reading matter that one can come into possession of. As an example, a recent decision of the Iowa Supreme, State v, Bauler, once again rules that a dog sniff is not a search.

Most of the local citizenry probably does not realize that the policy of the Newton Police Department is that they can perform a dog sniff on your vehicle once your vehicle is stopped for any traffic violation as long as the stop is not unnecessarily prolonged.  Considering the prevalence of illegal substances in the citizenry as a whole, it really should be something that is better publicized.  I am quite sure that you, the reader, have not been aware of this unless the police dog is brought to the location of your own street detention and worked around your car while you are receiving your ticket from the officer who stopped you.

Dog sniffs aren't searches according to the U. S. Supreme Court and the Iowa Supreme Court and therefore are not subject to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the State of Iowa which protect a citizen from unreasonable searches and seizures.  This is one of the anomalies that so befuddle us lawyers.  In effect, a dog searching for the smell of illegal narcotics located in your car, being led around your car, is not a search.  The courts try to convince us by whatever terminology they currently use, that a search is not a search.  Interesting isn't it when a search is not a search.  It is not a search because the courts say it is not a search:  there you have it.

The courts have gone to great lengths to convince not only us, but themselves that a dog sniff is not a search: many opinions have been written justifying this position.  Once a dog sniffs something illegal, then the officers have probable cause to search not only the car but you.  Funny how that works.  What these rulings mean, in effect, is any time you are in your vehicle and stopped for whatever reason, you and your passengers and the car you are in can be searched by a dog first, and then by humans second if the dog indicates his sniffing is positive for an illegal substance.

If a drug dog is brought into your house while they search for drugs and the dog shows the officers where the drugs are, that is part of a search.  If a drug dog  is at the airport sniffing passengers' suitcases, that is a search.  If a dog is used to track you down in the woods, that is a search.  But, searching for smells emanating from  your car is not a search  they say.

Another interesting fact is that under normal circumstances, only the dog's handler will know that the dog "hit" on your car.  They have gone to sniff school together; they are a team.  It is difficult to convince someone, like a judge, that the dog's handler will always say that the dog hit on the car once they find anything in the subsequent search.

It boils down to the fact that you really don't have any privacy rights while in your car.  You don't need search warrants for people's houses if all you have to do is follow people around in their cars until they commit some traffic violation:  no turn signal, crossing the center line, five miles over the speed limit, defective equipment etc., etc.  It's easy to forget that pot pipe in your pocket when late for work.  The courts allow this sort of intrusion into our lives often with the result of jail, bond, court, fines, etc.  

Because driving has been criminalized (you can't drive without committing a crime), a citizen doesn't have a right to privacy while out on the road.  I'm sure the courts and prosecutors have written volumes contrary wise and will continue to do so especially when they see a writing such as this willing to actually call a search a search.  But, you know, if your native language is English, a search is a search is a search. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The National Debt?

 THE NATIONAL DEBT?

The United States' debt concerns people; they look aghast at the numbers - - trillions.  That is a lot of money you say and it is.  How do we pay that debt?  It will bankrupt the entire citizenry of the country you say and it will not.

The United States dollar is the planet's currency.  There are very few places on earth that you can go and not use a dollar bill to pay for something.  This is quite a feat and one that works to our benefit in many ways.  Have you heard of the term "Eurodollar"?  Look it up sometime.  It constitutes a vast number of dollars existing outside the boundaries of this country that are used by other countries to trade with each other, such as in oil.  Dollars are everywhere and lots of them.

If we were to pay off our debt, foreign and internal, the earth would be awash with trillions of new dollars instantly.  And I say instantly because what we forget, especially those of us who worry the most, is that the United States makes its own money.  The debt both foreign and internal could be paid in minutes with computer key strokes; money, after all, is nothing but electronic blips. Think of credit or debit card purchases. Or you had $50,000 in government bonds and suddenly you don't have any bonds, you have an electronic deposit in your account of $50,000.  There would be no national debt but a whopping amount of new money.  It is expected that the amount of money that would be created and floated would cause  tremendous inflation.  Money will be there to spend and lots of it and spent it will be.

Just think of all the interest that the government is paying out annually.  That is money that is added to the purchasing power of the economy along with the money it borrows which is immediately spent.  What you may or may not realize is that other countries hold a lot of our debt; when an individual, corporation, mutual fund, hedge fund, foreign country buys US treasury notes or bonds, they are buying our debt. China holds a lot of US debt. They buy our debt because it is a safe investment; when everything else is going into the tank, you can always buy treasuries.

These hysterical comments about our national debt are simply that - - hysteria.  All countries have debt; unfortunately very few have the ability to pay their debt that we do.  We have thousands of economists graduating every year from our universities and tens of thousands of business graduates;  The national debt is not a secret; anyone with slightest background in either economics or business understands that debt, per se, is not something to be hysterical about; it is useful.

The money that our government borrows is used and spread throughout the country; and, as I said above,  that money is added to our economy: it in many ways controls the supply of money as well.  Not only does the government of the United States create our money (much of it); your local bank when it loans you a thousand dollars  has created a thousand dollars that did not exist before it loaned you the money.  Along with the government, the more money loaned by banks, the more money there is to spend on stuff you don't need. Money is being created constantly. To be fair though, if you make a payment back to the bank on the money it loaned you, you are in fact decreasing the money supply, so we can only hope you had a good time with it when you had it.  The effect is just the opposite with Uncle Sam, for every treasury note or bond he redeems,  dollars are available for use in the economy that were not there before the redemption and Uncle Sam's balance sheets have improved.

So there you have it folks, the national debt.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo