On Flatulence

 ON FLATULENCE

An incidence of flatulence does not signify an end of the world nor, contrary to our overly olfactorily  sensitive citizens, does it cause asphyxiation.  It is simply the product of ingestion which we all participate in and will do so until death.  It is one of these, unfortunate to some, common occurrences that cause serious alarm in the more sensitive.

Now a bathroom is normally an enclosed space and if properly enclosed can isolate any flatulence associated with its use.  Unfortunately for some, the bathroom is not the only location in a home or public that one can experience flatulence or to be subject to its effects.  Flatulence may be random, happening when least expecting it.  It occurs often in crowded environments and when you may be attempting to concentrate on a task at hand it could very well be inadvertent.

Flatulence has, on occasion, been the cause of hard feelings and name calling between those responsible and those subjected.  Now being a criminal defense attorney, I have my usual response to this problem - - criminalize flatulence in crowded spaces.  My suggestion would be that in a group of three or more, flatulence be classified as a simple misdemeanor with the usual prescribed penalty of not more than 30 days in jail and a fine.  And since flatulence is the result of ingestion which must continue until death, it will never go away and will continue to be one of those things in life that cause annoyance and for which prosecution may result.

Criminalization is the method by which my income can be increased and another method by which our legislature can continue to criminalize its citizens.  Obviously, proof determining who of a group is responsible for the flatulence would be an issue.  Proof could be difficult and would take witnesses of those affected adversely.  Though a problem for law enforcement, the more difficult the matter of proof, the more time would be involved in defending those charged which again increases the amount that can be charged for the defense of the crime.  All of which, to my mind, is a good thing.

So there you have it folks - - another problem, another solution. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Amendment 1

 AMENDMENT I

The hullabaloo over the 2nd Amendment roars on unabated - - we need our guns!  This refrain seems constant.  As a criminal defense attorney, I have former clients calling about how they might get their gun rights back.  They need their guns back as if that were the necessary requirement for their self-esteem.  I've never had one ask me how to get their wife or kids back, just their guns.  Apparently guns are more important than wife or kids.

However, if one were to actually read the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the gun thing comes in second to religion.  Religion frightened our founding fathers and rightly so.  It really hadn't been too long since the protestants and the catholics were slaughtering each other all over Europe, the auto de fé was still in mind, and witches and heretics recently were still being burnt to a crisp or dunked till drowned.  Jews were still being killed at random and muslims were the antichrist.  To people like Benjamin Franklin, Samuel and John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, religion above all other things, concerned them the most.

Amendment 1 of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people  peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievance."

Folks, this is number one!

The Puritans didn't much care for the religious climate in England which was apparently way too indifferent.  What they preferred was an enforced, religiously based government in New England, which they created as soon as they got here.  So the idea that the American colonies were founded for purposes of religious freedom needs some closer scrutiny than most are willing to give it. 

Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, New York supported  the Anglican Church; New England supported the Congregational Church;  Delaware, Rhode Island, Georgia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey had no colonial supported religion.  The founding fathers decided that a government sponsored religion would not be allowed in any national government for it would cause way too many problems as it had in the previous centuries.  And, you know, it still would. 

We have people of certain religious  views today attempting to implant their views into the rest of us.   We are seeing a resurgence of these efforts in the United States now.  Listen to the TV and radio evangelists, look to the book banning and the laws being passed. Religion by nature is intolerant; it abhors difference.  We have a new, successful effort through our legislature here in Iowa not only to monitor and control behavior, but to control beliefs - - the beliefs opposing their beliefs.

Fortunately or unfortunately we have a country that is made up of every possible religion and political belief found on the planet.  The idea that one group will now impose its beliefs on the rest of us, is not only unconstitutional, but simply absurd.  Regardless of the efforts, it isn't going to happen.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo