Whew!

 WHEW!

Having read the latest from our State Representative Dunwell, the only response really available is WHEW!  A truly amazing effort to justify the quest for racial purity and the true American spirit.  The Representative, in attempting to justify our current legislature and its ongoing efforts of enforcing purity in our institutions of higher learning and government administration whether city, county, or state, uses words and concepts of which he has no understanding. His educational background has none of the attributes he and others are so apparently desirous of achieving - - by getting rid of them.

The truly amazing quality of his latest opinion piece in the Newton Daily News justifying our legislature's actions is the concern with our "higher education" in Iowa as it experiences "skyrocketing costs, declining intellectual diversity, and the encroachment of identity politics".

Let's begin with the last "the encroachment of identity politics".  Clearly identity politics, assuming the Representative knows what it is, is not what the Representative objects to.  He is objecting to other people's "identity politics".  He is objecting to any politics not identical to his own.  These include ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, denomination, gender, sexual orientation, social background, and political affiliation to name but some.  

Then we have "intellectual diversity".  How one can say, with a straight face, that by getting rid of diversity, one can achieve it really can only come from a person who is just repeating words he has heard others say or is being misleading purposefully?  But this is, in fact, what Dunwell and his cohorts in the legislature do not want - - "intellectual diversity".  It really frightens them that our colleges are there to educate and to hopefully produce people that may not have the same beliefs they have and are able to question our everyday assumptions. The purpose of our educational establishment is not simply to train people to go work for corporate America. Also, our legislators don't want any "historical distortion" like what our history really is and how we got here, since this, apparently, would be an "ideological agenda". Some of our history is not so great; admitting it might actually have some benefit.

So rather than the use of euphemisms and nonsense to explain and justify their behavior as our legislators, let's just call it what it is: bigotry.  The war against the other will not be successful no matter how hard they try but to continue to try they will.  There was an article recently that what little gain in Iowa's population has occurred in recent years, 94% of it is from international immigration.  This does not please them - - these people coming here are different from us - - this is not good.

It is really not a healthy situation when the people who are in control of our government are so afraid of the other that they will go to any length to exclude them.  The idea how an institution such as a university has a diversity and equity office can give our legislatures such discomfort is seriously discomforting in itself.  The people in charge of our state government are afraid of the other and fear is not a healthy attribute to have when they are in charge and make the laws that affect us all.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

 

Middlesex

 MIDDLESEX

Jeffrey Eugenides

Books for Bigots

I normally wait until finishing a book before commenting on its value to a Bigot; on whether supporting Bigotry or vilifying it as unworthy.  In the case of Middlesex though, I am forced to smile at a Bigot attempting to read the novel.  I realize it is an act of fiction to even suggest a bigot reading a novel, especially this particular novel; but I suppose it could occur under the most unusual of circumstances.

First, the first person narrator is a hermaphrodite - hence the title.  This would be the first concern of any Bigot, to think that there is such a thing as a person with both sexual attributes.  But the concern would be alleviated in some fashion by the understanding that this hermaphroditism was caused by the grievous sin of brother and sister marrying and having a child.

The unfortunate biology did not appear until the third generation; but even so as it was caused by sin and since sin of the father is visited on the children for unnumbered generations, it was bound to occur.  Ergo, most satisfying to any true Bigot.

Desdemona and Lefty, of Greek origin, living in Turkey and the subject to probable death by Turks who were reclaiming land in Turkey seized by the Greeks. joined relatives in Detroit.  Since they were now adults but without consensual or nonconsensual sexual comfort decided, they had each other and would make due.  One would need a smidgen of knowledge about the animosity between the Greeks and the Turks which has been in existence long before there was a Greece or Turkey with periods of mass slaughter on both sides occurring over the centuries..  It is one of those things that in the Balkan area of the world seems to be rather prevalent - - if you are not one of us, we are going to kill you - - if given a chance.

So we have immigrants at the heart of the story, we have incest, and beyond that Lefty is assisting Zizmo running liquor from Canada during prohibition.  I am assuming that although illegal, it does not cause as much anguish in the mind of the normal Bigot as what previously occurred, i.e. bigamy.  Booze is an iffy subject for bigots (and can go either way), but since sex is not involved, we can give it a pass as something which many Bigots, although non-approving, usually don't consign the participants to the infernal regions.

We are not even halfway in the novel and able to make a judgement on the appropriateness of MIDDLESEX for the usual Bigot.  Now you say, why do you think you are such an expert on what Bigots would read or not read.  Well, I am surrounded by them and know them well.  I do understand that most Bigots don't read, let alone read novels, especially current ones; and this particular novel would be no exception to that general rule.  So why bother, you say?

I bother for the reason that if a Bigot were to read this book, they (and I use that pronoun purposefully) might say to themselves, "I am not a Bigot and I will prove it by reading a book".  The mere idea that one is a Bigot and maybe, just maybe, recognizes  it, seems to me a good thing. In general, as a general rule, having one less Bigot in the world is always an improvement.  Whether or not reading Middlesex would cause one to give up Bigotry might be a rather slim possibility, but it should  be a positive if it were to occur,  I would think.  To realize that there are people in the world, not like you, but who spend their lives much as you do, with the same concerns, problems, and anxieties whether a hermaphrodite or not, would hopefully,  have a positive effect. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The State of Things

 THE STATE OF THINGS

Occasionally, one must look around and take note.  It really isn't difficult to do if one actually makes an effort.  We really only get things piece by piece from our sources of information whether it be newspaper, TV, or the internet.  Such and such happened to today or the legislature did such and such today.  The only escape from this is our national channels of Fox, MSNBC, or CNN and these sources don't give you anything but outrage.

Nowhere do you see any objective analysis of the events taking place.  Take for example the Iowa legislature.  The Iowa legislature has been and continues the effort to destroy the changes that have occurred in our society and our thinking over the past several decades.  They want a return; they want a belief system that mirrors that of their parents and to which they are familiar and comfortable.  

A prime example is that of self-identity.  Our legislators are insistent that we, as individuals, have only certain options when we define ourselves.  We have one option when it comes to sex:  we are either male or female.  The only reason that homosexuality is off the screen is because of the new identifications, such as transgender, which have replaced it with new ideas of what a human can be whether biological or simply of choice or experimentation.  

This idea that our legislature can simply by passing laws prescribe how I am to think about myself or my ability to accept others for what they think of themselves, is to give themselves a power which they do not possess, or should.  Our legislature is no longer about how to benefit the public which they purport to represent; they have determined that their function is to prohibit things they do not understand nor care to.  They no longer have the usual purpose nor do they function as intended.  The goal should not be to pass X number of laws every year, but to deliberate on the matters that will benefit the electorate.  The laws they are passing are not of benefit to anyone - - they are restrictive: they are meant to prohibit ideas and beliefs.  Our legislature has turned against the people they purport to represent.

Our legislators, the majority of them, have certain beliefs and in their minds it is their function to enforce these beliefs on that part of the public which do not share them.  The fact that a book does not proscribe or be consistent with their beliefs, that a university department teaches contrary to their beliefs, that our cities reflect certain concerns not present in rural Iowa, are now the focus of our legislature.  This is not a healthy situation and we should be disturbed.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Zoo City II

 ZOO CITY II

LAUREN BEUKES

BOOKS F0R BIGOTS

ZOO CITY deserves a second notice.  It is a book that has as its main character a somewhat mottled existence.  We are to see that she is a person of good instincts, not unkind, scrounging for a subsistence with the ability to find lost things which is her main source of income.  Living on the top floor of a basically abandoned building with water sometimes and electricity sometimes and associates that come and go as they find ways, mostly unethical, of making some cash.

We don't learn that Zinzi December will do what is necessary to retain some sense of maintenance until later in the book.  Helping to scam an elderly couple which clearly will devastate them gives us an immediate sense of unease.  Until that point, we feel Zinzi is a really ok person regardless of minor flaws simply trying to survive in a barely survivable world.  

Zoo City is named such because people have an animal with them as they go about their business.  Zinzi's animal is a sloth which perches on her shoulder as she goes about her business.  Others have their animals as well.  For instance, one of her associates has a mongoose.  These critters all seem content to sit on the shoulders of the person they are with and seem to be able to communicate with their ride.

Johannesburg is a nightmare with those with money hidden behind walls and barbed wire.  Johannesburg is also full of refugees from other parts of africa.  Strange place to congregate.  If Johannesburg is a Mecca for refugees, the rest of Africa must really be a nightmare. Now, none of this a Bigot wants to hear.  Acknowledging a world that is not fixable by prayer, is not something that can be tolerated - - so ignored.  Johannesburg and the life presented can not be fixed by prayer and one gets the impression as one proceeds through the book that it can not be fixed.

A major part of the action involves teenagers making records and becoming rich beyond their competency.  The idea that totally worthless teenagers (and they are totally unable to function in any way reminiscent of normal human conduct)  can become megastars by recording an album is a further commentary on life in the city, or anywhere for that matter.  The book has a plot that devolves into a final hurry up and lets get this thing over, but the plot is irrelevant to the scene - - something merely to carry it along.  

The book is worth reading which, alone, makes it unavailable to Bigots.  One of the chief characteristics of Bigots is to not read literature - - it causes too much angst to understand that the world is not what they make it out to be.

Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo

Zoo City

                                                                     ZOO CITY

Lauren Beukes

Books for Bigots

It is time for another effort to find a Book for Bigots.  Such efforts are always timely, especially during legislative sessions.  Here in Iowa we are making a valiant effort to reinvent biblical times in the land of corn and soybeans.  Somehow our voters support this effort continuing to elect those so inclined.

This effort is so intertwined with obvious racism, protestant radicalism, formerly known as Puritanism. and the fear of sex one wonders how we as a society are functioning in a world run by scientific and technological achievements.  I will have to say, it is remarkable that the majority of a population can simply castigate the world they live in and create a make-believe one.

The world will not be a better place in a return to medieval fictions that no longer have any credence.  Neither Aquinas, Augustine or Luther could visualize or cope with the internet and many of us can not do so now.  The former world was not better than the current one.  For those who are dissatisfied with either their own lives or the lives they see around them, returning to a dismal past will not solve their insecurities and the meaningless of their existence.

The last, a meaningful existence, has lost all credence in a capitalist society.  We rely entirely on our economic machinery continuing to work efficiently.  This economic machinery is an absolute necessity for employment, income, housing, medical assistance, safety ad infinitum.  Bringing back the ten commandments will not help.  Beliefs have never kept us safe; they are in fact proven dangerous.  We, as individuals, are totally dependent on our economic system functioning and this fact causes anxiety.  

Back to Books for Bigots.  My latest offering is ZOO CITY by Lauren Beukes.  The scene is Johannesburg, South Africa, a city divided between those who have and those who have not.  In the book, we live in that part of the city which has  not - - a really unhealthy place: a place where the people live on the remnants of what once was.

This is a place Bigots as well as us decent folk would prefer not to live or experience.  It is a society that has failed in every way. Our current flock of Bigots have it in mind that life in America is failing them and they believe bringing god back into our lives will somehow fix it.  Reading FOX CITY would benefit them in several ways.  One would be that they can visualize a world much worse than their own; a world however, that looms in front of them as a possibility - - possibly even a probability.

The efforts of our legislature here in Iowa will not fix the anxiety of the people who vote for them.  Realizing that their lives are totally dependent on others causes anxiety.  Their deities are not able to reach down and fix something that eventually will fall.  Our economic system and consequentially, our lives, will not continue unabated simply because  biblical precepts are once again taught in our schools and the pledge of allegiance is again required to start the day.   Make-believe is not the answer: make-believe always seems better until it is not.

In a society where all are dependent on others for their existence, exchanging that dependence from those others to some fictional being will not be of much help.  The notion that our life here on earth is only a stopping point in an eternal existence may give some relief to those of more than ordinary anxiety, but what it does, since it is simply a matter of make-believe, is to require an effort to enforce such belief on others.  One cannot have doubters in a world operated by belief.  

As Bertrand Russell intimated, people don't kill other people over whether two plus two is four, people kill each other over the belief in different gods or whatnot.  Belief has been and will continue to be the thing that causes the most grief to the human race.  Unfortunately believing is really simple: anyone can do it. It is exceedingly easy to adopt a belief;  but to change a belief or to denounce a belief is another matter.  Beliefs get stuck in place which is causing the current legislative efforts here in the land of corn and soybeans.  

I realize this is a long way from a discussion of ZOO CITY, but what is the purpose of reading a book unless it is to make you think, not only about the book, but the world around you.  This, Z00 CITY accomplishes.  ZOO CITY portrays an existence we all want to avoid.  Unfortunately, current efforts here in Iowa will not succeed in doing this.  Our legislature may think they can stall off the future with legislation, but this has never been successful and it will not be successful now.  It would really be good if our legislators could recognize this.  Bigots should read this book.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

It's the Name Thing

 IT'S THE NAME THING

As our legislature's primary duty is to make life more difficult for as many people as possible, I have another suggestion that has some merit for inclusion in their legislative priorities for the remainder of the current session.  We need a law that prohibits hyphenated names.  

Hyphenated names are far worse than transgender pronouns.  After all hyphenated pronouns are one syllable and SHORT.  On the other hand hyphenated names cause all sorts of problems for those of us trying to figure out how to address someone in the correct manner without offense.  

Oftentimes these hyphenated names are lengthy and cumbersome to use, and, I might add, unnecessary.  Simply because these "modern" women want to carry on their name just like their husbands do; it is not a sufficient reason to give their kid a hyphenated name.  These are more than likely the same women who believe they have a right to an abortion and that thought alone should give you the incentive to call your legislator and demand action.

The legislature could even criminalize it.  They enjoy making new criminals every year, this would give them a golden opportunity to make some more.  Not only should they prohibit any legal recognition in the future of such hyphenated names, they could prohibit current driver's licenses or identification cards to have them - - limiting them to one name now.  People would be flocking to the courthouse to get their name changed.  What fun would that be: serve them right.

Now some of you may object that it is none of the legislature's business to demand one last name only, but just look at what they are doing now, simply to find something to do while still in session, banning transgender.  Now if you can ban transgender, which is a biological fact, you certainly can ban hyphenated names which is not biological, but merely a modern fad generated by women who think they should be equal to men in respect to their children's names and refuse to change their names when they get married.

And as always, as a criminal defense attorney, I am in favor of new crimes and criminals.  Our business is booming thanks to our legislature who continue to think that since they are legislators they have to pass legislation whether needed or not simply to have something to do and what is even better,  it is usually to prohibit some behavior of which they do not approve.  Hyphenated names should be at the top of the list.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Another Scary Word

  ANOTHER SCARY WORD

As noted previously, the latest attempts to mobilize the public against scary words has put such words into our consciousness as an obvious effort for us to consider and reject them as deleterious.  A second such word after "diversity"  is "equity".  There is currently a nationwide effort for the public to reject "equity" along with "diversity" and other terms indicating things deemed harmful to our  well being.

As any word, "equity" has a general meaning which I am quite sure those objecting to its use have no knowledge of.  In addition, having some legal training, I am familiar with what have long been known as courts of equity.  Yes, indeed, there are courts of equity even though no longer called such.  The first actual courts of equity were established in the 16th century.

Courts of equity do not grant money damages, they deal with how citizens deal with each other specifically in such things as good faith, fairness, ethics, and just conduct.   I suspect this is a surprise to many - - that there are courts who concern themselves with just conduct and what's more have existed since the 16th century or thereabouts.  

So once again, to those who are involved in this apparent national movement to rid the world of equity, one might at least have some insight as to what the word means and why there are courts of equity in the first place.  If we are to live together and to maintain some sort of civility toward one another, which over the centuries many have realized to be difficult, we need to have some institution available to see that it occurs i. e., courts of equity. 

It doesn't take long, if one were to look around one's neighborhood, city or other place, or to read a newspaper or watch the local news that there is some serious inequity that could use a little attention.  But what I see in this nation is an effort to characterize "equity" as something pernicious and not to be condoned. 

Now the equity that forms the common complaint currently  is the "equity" of the effort to make up for centuries of inequitable behavior to a very large number of people and give them the chance they never have had.  We  call this effort "equity".  From what I see, the current feeling of those who are not of the groups that have been treated inequitably for centuries, are saying enough is enough already, we've had enough equity.  I, for one though, think it is a decent idea to give people a chance they never have had and it really does seem equitable.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

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