The Sugar Frosted Nutsack Revisited

 THE SUGAR FROSTED NUTSACK REVISITED

BOOKS FOR BIGOTS

One occasionally needs to rethink something that has earlier been thought.  In this instance, it is my pronouncement that THE SUGAR FROSTED NUTSACK is a parody of modern life.  Having come across some other thoughts, and being unsatisfied with the simple description as parody when referring to the book, I am revisiting the book.  

This revisit does not reflect the view that, afterall, it is a book that would be read and cherished by Bigots.  That is not relevant to this discussion.  I recently came across a brief description of "postmodernism", a term that I have seen and read about and considered for a number of years without any understanding of what it signifies.  What "postmodern" was, in the description I read included the following:  "nonselection", "intentional indiscrimination", "logical impossibility", and "inclusivity".

Now these terms, in toto, do indeed describe THE SUGAR FROSTED NUTSACK which leads me to believe that the book is a serious effort to reflect the postmodern condition of life as it currently exists and as we experience it.  However, I think, after further consideration, my description of the book as a parody is more correct than incorrect.

One can only see the world as Mark Leyner does as a grotesque parody of what life is or should be.  A function of literature, a function lost on Bigots of all varieties, is the effort to make us think about the world in which we live.  This THE SUGAR FROSTED NUTSACK has done.  As I said earlier it is a difficult read with little context, no continuity except repetition, and a vast vocabulary with which to further make the reading of the material even more difficult.  It is in fact a parody and if this is so, so is postmodernism.  I am not a literary critic, but I do think that books are written not for literary critics but for people like me who read them for amusement, for understanding, out of boredom, or whatever reason that we have when we sit down with a book to read.  

I'm usually reading several books at once, usually depending where I am in the house.  In bed, I have THE PICKWICK PAPERS by Charles Dickens.  This was the one novel of his I never got read during the years I was reading Dickens.  I enjoy this book very much and find myself chuckling every few pages.  The characters are enjoyable, the plot is enjoyable, the settings are interesting, and for us living currently, it is a history.

Why mention THE PICKWICK PAPERS along side THE SUGAR FROSTED NUTSACK?  I mention them together in this context because it is relevant to the discussion of postmodernism so called.  THE PICKWICK PAPERS reflects a world we can understand; THE SUGAR FROSTED NUTSACK reflects a world we can not understand unless we do actually view it as a parody of modern life.

Are our lives more accurately depicted by Leyner or Dickens?  I want to think that our lives are more like the lives portrayed by Dickens, but in reality they may not be much different from what is shown us by Leyner and that thought is not a comforting one.  Hopefully my life has more coherence, continuity, and meaning than what THE SUGAR FROSTED NUTSACK depicts, but again, I will have to give it some more thought.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Cat Thing

 THE CAT THING

Being a criminal defense attorney, it seems only right that I share

a few of the criminal cases before our local courts; the citizens of our community should always be informed as much as possible of current policy and government activity that may affect them.   Such is the case with a person I know, whether professionally or otherwise need not be discussed, who was charged with animal abuse for leaving a cat in a residence (with open window) having been evicted by the landlord for, presumably, nonpayment of rent.

The defendant in this matter is thrown out on the street by the landlord, and then prosecuted by the State of Iowa for not taking a cat with him.  The landlord is not being prosecuted for human abuse, the ex-tenant is being prosecuted for animal abuse - - for leaving the cat.    

Now, don't get in a toot and conclude that I'm in favor of cat abuse (although I will say the world has too many cats).  One does not have to be in favor of cat abuse to wonder about the disparity here.  Afterall, it is not clear if the landlord actually evicted the cat.  The cat may not have had to depart the premises as did the human; and if this is the case, it would seem that prosecuting the human for leaving the cat would be premature.  The facts regarding this situation are unclear.

One ought to be familiar with the situation where a cat or cats share an abode with humans and do pretty much what they please when they please.  This is especially true with farm cats and cats of more rural areas.  The idea, to the cat, that it is owned by a human, has no purchase.  Ergo, any forceful entry and detainer evicting a human from a residence may have no effect on the feline resident - - it is not the one being evicted; there is nothing in the paperwork naming the cat as the evictee or as a defendant in the legal proceeding affecting the human.  

Now you say, the tenant left the cat without food.  Okay, fair enough.  The cat and the human are now in the same situation if both leave the premises.  Neither has a place to sleep and both have to go out and find something to eat.  Determining that the human has to find something for himself to eat and at the same time find something for the cat to eat seems a little unfair.  The cat and human both this time of year can find nice fat crickets to eat and the cat can catch a mouse or two while the human may have some difficulty in that regard.  And they both will have the same dumpsters to check for thrown away food to share.  So it actually may be that the cat is better off than the human when it comes to dining after eviction; and if this is so, the idea of prosecuting the human for animal abuse seems unjustified altogether.

As I indicated above, this article is simply an effort to inform the local citizenry of local legal issues.  It is always good to be informed of these matters so that one's conduct can be in conformity with local expectations - - if evicted, take the cat.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Sugar Coated Nutsack

                                 THE SUGAR FROSTED NUTSACK

                                        Mark Leyner

                                     Books for Bigots

This book would not be read by a bigot after the first three sentences:

"There was never nothing.  But before the debut of the Gods, about fourteen billion years ago, things happened without any discernible context.  There were no recognizable patterns.  It was all incoherent."

The book is "incoherent" and reflects a total "incoherence".  Toward the end of the book, beginning at page 209 of the First Back Bay Paperback Edition, March 2013 our author tells you what you have read:

". . . with all its excruciating redundancies, heavy-handed, stilted tropes and wearying clichés, its overwrought angst, all its gnomic non sequiturs, all its off-putting adolescent scatology and cringe inducing smuttiness, all the depraved tableaus and orgies of masturbation with all their bulging, spurting shapes, and all the compulsive repetitions about Freuds's repetition compulsion . . . ."

This book is a difficult read and not one many would get through.  If this is a picture of the modern world, we are in trouble.  It certainly isn't a world I believe I currently live in or wish to; but our author seems determined to convince us that our world, the one we all live in, makes no sense whether we think it does or not.  

To the list of categories listed by the author himself, I would add schizophrenia to the top of the list.  The world depicted is clearly schizophrenic.  I would presume without clear proof, once again, that a bigoted mind has no more likelihood of understanding schizophrenia than it does a cross dresser.  Unfortunately, it is my understanding of the current bigotry, that it is firmly religious based; not just Christian mind you but Islam and Hinduism and other religions who have the mindset of "I am right and everybody else is wrong and going to hell or where nonbelievers go these days". 

One can read a book for numerous reasons; one of which is to help us understand the world we live in - give us a new perspective and so forth.  As I said, I found it difficult to get to the end of this book, but I was determined.  There is a conversation at the end between the author and an interlocutor where Mr. Leyner attempts to give us some incite, which to my way of thinking, he fails to do.

I would recommend the book for anyone who wants a real challenge and a wild ride into what gives every appearance of viewing the world through a schizophrenic lens.  In my line of work, schizophrenia is a matter of fact occurrence so I'm somewhat familiar with those afflicted.  It is an example of schizophrenia plainly.  And as the author says in the first three sentences all is without context, recognizable patterns, or coherence. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Iowa v. Berg

 IOWA V. BERG

We have another Iowa Supreme Court opinion that needs some discussion.  I know that what the Supreme Court says is the law of the State, but discussion isn't necessarily forbidden simply because the Supreme Court has made a pronouncement.  This case appears to be another of those instances which require some additional attention.

We have an employee of Casey's who authorized some gift cards to herself without paying for them.  She was originally charged with theft in the 4th degree (stealing more than $300).  She used the Casey's card to buy some gas and groceries at her place of employment (Casey's) the next day; it was her employer's gift card.  The State did not file the required trial information in time and the case was dismissed.  Having no intention of not prosecuting a citizen when given the chance, the State filed the charge of unauthorized use of a credit card.

Now the crime under which Ms. Berg was charged the second time is found at 715A.6(1)(a)(3) of the Iowa Code:  "A person commits a public offense by using a credit card for the purpose of obtaining property or services with knowledge of any of the following: (1) The credit card is stolen or forged or (3) For any other reason the use of the credit card is unauthorized.  She used the credit card the next day for a purchase of $59.67.  She issued  three gift cards to herself for a total of $700.

The Court said she couldn't be prosecuted for 4th degree theft because you have to steal more than $300 for that charge (even though people are convicted of lesser included offenses all the time).   So the State was simply out of luck on that one.  It would seem to me, that by stating it in this manner, the court is acquiescing in the view that Ms. Berg stole $59.67.   The cards issued were a Casey's card for $75, a Visa card for $200, and an Amazon card for $425.  Only the Casey's card was used.

Just how do gift cards work?  I can only assume that when a person buys a gift card from Casey's, Casey's receives the payment and then transfers that amount digitally less any fee for the sale to the issuer of the card.  This would have occurred in two of the instances, both not used.  The Casey's card, apparently, was used to purchase the gas and groceries at Casey's.  Again, one would assume, that at the point that Casey's transfers $200 to Visa and $425 to Amazon, Casey's is out $625 less fees.  Casey's has at that point lost $625 without reimbursement.  These transactions presumably are done automatically via algorithms.  Presumably, again, once it is determined that the gift cards were issued without payment, Visa and Amazon are notified and cancel the cards and return the money to Casey's, again by some algorithm automatically.  The $625 has been returned.  Interestingly, Casey's would have been out $625 whether the gift cards for Visa and Amazon were used or not and Ms. Berg would not have committed a crime by issuing them to herself without ever using them.

Now the gas and groceries were obviously obtained from Casey's without payment; i.e., a theft.  But apparently the Supreme Court says not, even though they make the statement that the 4th degree theft charge couldn't stand anyway because she only used it to purchase $59.67 worth of merchandise. The Casey's  gift card was authorized and used the next day.  The theft, it would seem to me, occurred the next day when Ms. Berg used the Casey's card to purchase $59.67 worth of gas and groceries at Casey's - - a simple misdemeanor.  Clearly Casey's was not harmed in any way when Ms. Berg authorized the Casey's gift card to herself without payment.  Casey's was only at a loss when the card was used, contrary to what would have been the case with the issuance of the cards to Visa and Amazon.  This raises another issue not addressed by the court:  How do we determine the card was stolen or unauthorized? 

Casey's cards belong to Casey's but this is not the theft alleged.  Section 715.6(2)(c) provides  that it is the amount of "property . . . sought to be secured by the credit card" that is determinative of the level of crime.  So  one doesn't actually have to use the amount of the card to commit the level of crime: Class C Felony, Class D Felony, Aggravated Misdemeanor.  One only has to use the card: $1 will suffice even if the card had been issued for $1,499 (anything under $1,500 being an aggravated misdemeanor).  If she would have authorized the Casey's card for more than $10,000 it would have been a Class C Felony, over $1,500 it would have been a Class D Felony, again, even if she would have used them for only a $1 purchase.  If Ms. Berg had used each of the three gift cards she did issue to herself to make purchases of $1 each, she would be facing six years in prison for a $3 theft. If, for the higher amounts,15 years in prison for Class D Felonies, and 30 years in prison for Class C Felonies.

Apparently, intent is now a crime; especially when dealing with gift cards.  If I authorize a gift card to myself in the amount of $75 without paying for it, clearly I am intending on using it to purchase $75 worth of merchandise without having shelled out the $75 for the purchase of the gift card - - normally a simple misdemeanor.  But because I used this gift card which I didn't pay for (but authorized) in the amount of $75, I have committed an aggravated misdemeanor subject to two years in prison rather than a simple misdemeanor subject to 30 days in jail.

I'm not the Supreme Court of Iowa, but it would seem to me that the Court may want to give this situation a little more thought even though Justice Oxley wrote the opinion and all other justices joined in it, it seems to miss the crux of the matter.  Simply because you used your employer's gift card to steal $59.67 worth of merchandise from your employer rather than take it out of the cash register, it is an aggravated misdemeanor rather than a simple misdemeanor.  Something is askew here.  Apparently it depends on how you steal something rather than how much you steal that determines the punishment you face.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Proud Iowan

 PROUD IOWAN

I have just finished with an article regarding banned books here in the United States.  The article indicates that Florida and Iowa are responsible for most of them; as many as 10,000 nationwide.  The article appears in what is apparently an online publication called "19th".  

I can not verify the numbers of banned books nor the statement that Iowa and Florida lead the country in the banning of books, but the simple allegation is enough to make any Iowan proud.  Hey, we're leading the country in ignorance and intolerance.  Way to go Iowa!  Let's keep up the good work; there is always more to do in the fight against knowledge and tolerance and we shouldn't be satisfied with what has already been accomplished.

As remarked previously, banning and burning books has a long and illustrious history.  Throughout medieval Europe whenever a book came along to contest the local beliefs, to the flames it went and sometimes the author along with it.  Standard practice folks so what we need to understand is that what Iowa and Florida are doing has a pedigree; an established practice of centuries.

We have here the traditional demise of unwanted literature and unwanted ideas and practices.   One set of people decide what other sets of people will have access to and what they will not have access to.  Very simple really.  Whoever is in charge gets to choose our reading material; what could be fairer than that?  Democracy at work, right?

Now, as you have probably guessed, I'm not in favor of burning books or authors nor of banning them.  Many people have made and continue to make a conscious effort to know as little about the world they live in and the people who accompany them here on planet earth.  I have never thought this a reasonable or responsible view, but who am I?  If a person doesn't want to read a book, they are free not to read it.  If the person who has not read the book doesn't want to hear about it, they don't have to hear about it.  No one is forcing other people to be ignorant; that is a choice each of us has to make for ourselves.

Just as I will not force someone not to read a book, I request that others not resist my efforts to read a book or my child's efforts.  Seems only fair.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo