15 August 2025

It's a Felony

 IT'S A FELONY


And you are darn right!  It should be!  Throwing a sandwich at an ICE officer and hitting him in the chest with it certainly should be a felony.  It shows total disrespect for an officer of the United States employed in capturing, detaining, and removing undesirables from mainland America.  Being disrespectful should be a felony, don't you think?  What are we coming to throwing sandwiches at a uniformed employee of the federal government?


Now you may think I'm over reacting.  Not at all.  Living in a country where this sort of behavior is thought proper or necessary is untenable.  ICE has an important function as do all law enforcement branches of the government.  Our legislatures have made sure of this with practically uncountable new crimes and punishments for those who don't show the proper respect for people in uniform of one kind or another.  We have  consequences here in the USA.


The question is, of course, how do we discourage this sort of behavior in particular.  We have learned through years of experience that by simply putting someone in jail doesn't really have the consequences that we had hoped for.  Many of those thrown in jail feel they shouldn't be there and have been done wrong and consequently there is a substantial recidivism and we need to avoid that if possible.  New suggestions need to be made.


How about requiring an offender to salute someone in uniform whenever they come in contact with one.  Saluting is and always has been a sign of respect.   After all you are saluting the uniform not necessarily the person in it and it is appropriate to do so since the people in that uniform are present for our protection after all.  Sometimes you may wonder what exactly they are protecting us from but that is another issue altogether.


I am putting forth  but one suggestion.  You, the reader, may have others.  Bowing is always a possibility although this form of salutation has long been unused here in  America.  Or, we could simply have a simple misdemeanor introduced and passed by congress or the state legislatures making it a ticketable offence that if one were within a certain distance of a person in uniform that one must show some sort of outward respect toward that person which obviously would not include throwing a sandwich at the chest of that person in uniform with which you have come in contact.


The new crime would have to be clearly enunciated and defined as to what specific behavior the person in the presence of a uniformed must show and this might not be easy but necessary all the same if it is to be enforced uniformly.  So, in conclusion, we must all give this some thought and especially conduct ourselves in an appropriate manner when in the vicinity of a person in uniform; and, if we do so, maybe legislation would be unnecessary.


Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

14 August 2025

Reckless Eyeballing

 RECKLESS EYEBALLING

Ishmael Reed


In our latest episode of books for bigots, Mr. Reed gives us some interesting things to think about, all of which are directly aimed at bigots.  In that the novel is directed directly at bigots, bigots would find little in it to applaud. Ishmael has much to say and uses a novel to say it which, I might add, can be an effective way of saying something.  Sometimes it is more effective to have a character say it than the author directly although in RECKLESS EYEBALLING it is clearly the author giving us his opinion on various things through the mouth of Mr. Ball, the protagonist. 


The comment that the movies are about monsters of one kind or another that have only one thing on their mind - - white women, is a rather unique intro to the issue of whiteness.  One certainly can't dispute this fact about superheroness.  When it comes to King Kong or superheroes like Superman, Batman, The Green Hornet, etc., black, brown, red, or yellow doesn't cut it - - white women for the large gorilla and those saving human kind from themselves.  The same goes for aliens from outer space.  There must be some idea out there in the universe that white women taste better when roasted or flayed or eaten in some other manner than black, brown, red, or yellow women.


Then you have those who maintain the earth is flat and believe flying too high jeopardizes punching a hole in the sky.  There are such people you know and one simply has to accept the ludicrous when dealing with them.  This, too, is often bigotry in bizarre mode.  Where one can adopt the ridiculous as fact, one usually finds incipient bigotry.  Always keep an eye on the irrational; it can often get out of hand and be dangerous.


By the way, eyeballing is the act of looking too long at one object and reckless eyeballing is a black man looking too long at a white woman.  In the past this has led to unfortunate circumstances for the eyeballer.  We must protect our white women folk at all cost, apparently for superheroes and aliens. In


There also appears to be an underlying irritation of Mr. Reed's in the form of white feminists.  He spends a considerable time in other publications discussing the effects of feminism on the black male with several remarks to the same effect in the novel under discussion.  He doesn't seem to believe that feminism has been very helpful to the black cause and wants this view known.


The other nemesis of black culture and life in the United States, according to Mr. Reed, have been the Jews apparently. One of his comments I find interesting and which will cause further thought is the idea the Jewish community uses the blacks as a buffer between them and the goyim.  After all the Jews are who killed Christ; black people weren't in the picture.  Western civilization has insisted on Jesus being white:  all the pictures I've seen of Jesus throughout my life indicate he is strictly Caucasian. Now that the Jews have someone they can shove in front of the white public, black people,  that gets the attention of the bigots and they are thankful for that or so says Mr. Reed.


  Upon finishing the book, I really didn’t have the impression that this was satire; although there is some reference somewhere that the novel was meant to be a satire and we should consider all or parts of it as such.  Whether the book or parts thereof are meant to be satirical or an accurate picture of American society is an interesting question and one that deserves some thought even if it were to be hotly contested by the Jewish community and bigots in general.  There is discussion by Mr. Reed in another publication that RECKLESS EYEBALLING was indeed intended to be satirical, however it did not impress me as being particularly satirical.


There is one digression early on which is pertinent to this discussion: the person who was to direct the play RECKLESS EYEBALLING,  Jim Minsk, a Jewish guy,  was lured to a fake southern college and murdered in some sort of bizarre Christian ritual. I'm not quite sure how this episode fits into the novel or adds to it other than an example emphasizing the view that Jews need blacks as a buffer between themselves and whites still.


Another totally unrelated topic raised in some random conversation on page 84 of the St. Martin's Press version is the idea that the most frequent object in European art (not recent) is a weapon.  Reed is correct in his view that European art is full of "murder and mayhem".  Between portraits of the aristocracy or the bucolic are the full scale battles or of people being tortured by one method or another.  European art does tend to reflect a serious defect in human nature.  However, it is not clear how these random reflections contribute to the novel other than to reflect poorly on our ancestors.


Reckless Eyeballing is actually about writing and getting staged a play - - a play of the same name as the title of the book.  It doesn't appear to be an easy task and one requiring the assistance of very unpleasant people.  So we do have a plot.  The center of the novel and our playwright is Ian Ball who overcomes all obstacles which consist mostly in the unpleasant people he must deal with to get his play on stage. But in the end all is well as the play is a huge success and we are led to believe that success enables Mr. Ball to accrue large sums of cash allowing him to return to his home island.


But as a last thought, the following:  At page 143 of the edition I read, the author makes an interesting comment through Ian Ball:  "Good grief, Ball thought.  Not only did the black and brown ones hate the white ones, but the yellow ones and each other as well".  Everyone must hate everybody.  Not a situation that holds much promise.


Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo


09 August 2025

Tariffs There Are

 TARIFFS THERE ARE


Some may not know what a tariff is.  I can't think this is true of many.  Tariffs are making the news everyday.  Trump declares a tariff one day on some trading partner of the United States and the next day says he may wait awhile to negotiate.


There are duties and tariffs.  Duties are what the importer pays and tariffs are what those here in the United States pay to purchase products from another country.  As an example, Walmart which imports much of its inventory from China, imports an item at a cost of $1.00.  A 30% tariff would raise the cost of that item from $1.00 to $1.30.  Now Walmart is not going to eat that $.30; Walmart will pass that extra $.30 on to the customer.


The persons buying things from Walmart will now pay 30% more for the items they purchase.  This is a significant increase in cost to the average household.  Where did that $.30 go?  It went to the government.  The government now has an extra $.30 for every dollar of imports coming from that particular country.  In the case of China that could be billions of additional money flowing into the treasury which is coming from us.  


Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" gets the headlines.  You and I will be getting a tax break here and there and this will make us feel good - - presumably.  After all, we will pay fewer taxes and be able to use the extra cash for needed items.  WRONG.


Tariffs are taxes.  By increasing tariffs, the government is increasing our taxes and siphoning off billions of dollars. This tax will be paid by you and me, not Walmart.  By imposing tariffs, Trump is imposing taxes and he is doing it by himself in a method that is most likely unconstitutional.


Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says:


"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."


"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."


The president of the United States does not have the power to impose taxes.  It is my understanding that Congress has given the executive branch some power in regard to tariffs in certain circumstances but I am uncertain of those.  The matter is now being litigated in the courts.  


But imposing taxes he is doing - - by himself and changing them almost daily making it almost impossible for a company like Walmart to implement any particular policy or take any particular action when their costs change daily.   It is a real mess and probably not constitutional.  And if it is not constitutional, it is not legal.  If Congress doesn't decide to act and regain some of the governmental power that the constitution says it has, we will be ruled by one person which is something that has never been contemplated in this country.  We should not allow it now.  When forming this country we rejected monarchy and have fought dictatorships most of our history.  It does not work out well for the citizens when one person has no check on his authority.


Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo