Getting Shot

 GETTING SHOT

There is much discussion these past few years about police brutality - - police shooting and killing citizens for one reason or another.  This often occurs after a traffic stop or some other inconsequential interaction with the local police force.  Of course, one can get shot by another civilian, but for our purpose here, we are discussing getting shot (or tased) by a police officer or some other form of law enforcement personnel.

If you look at many of these interactions, where someone ends up deceased, the deceased has not done what they have been told to do or not do.  They have been disobedient - - non-compliant.  They are normally dead because they have decided to disobey a "lawful" command by a law enforcement person.

When you draw a firearm and aim it at another person you are threatening to kill that person.  Officers are trained to draw their firearms in various circumstances - - routinely.  They will tell you it is for officer safety or of the concern for the safety of others or as policy, but in fact it is a threat to kill the person who the firearm is aimed at.  If someone points a gun at me, they are threatening to kill me.  Pretty simple really. 

Guns kill people.  That is what they are made for.  Their main purpose is not to be an article in a museum or a gun safe, but to kill people or other living creatures.  And this is what they are in fact used for - - killing people.  All over the planet people are being killed by guns; it's an established procedure.  And almost always, at least the vast majority of the incidents of death by gun, the person being killed is refusing to do what they have been told to do by the person with the gun.

It is a matter of obeying.  One must obey or get shot.  This is as true here as it is anywhere else - - obey or get shot.  It happens, if not daily, weekly here in the good old United States of America.  One sees the videos; often one can even hear the conversations.  Often cars are involved.  Someone doesn't stop or someone won't get out of the car or someone grabs for a phone.  Oops - - you're dead.  And most often, the officer was following "procedure" or "policy" and is thereby justified in killing the person killed.

Established policy or procedure is a defense to such killing - - "I was trained to shoot  a person under these circumstances hence I am justified".  Enough said.  

It's all for the good really.  We need a compliant public - - one that is in the habit of doing what it is told to do by representatives of the government. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The War on Raccoons

 A WAR ON RACCOONS

According to the Des Moines Register of 28 October 2022, our legislature is poised for a new war, a war against raccoons.  According to reports, we have been invaded by hordes of the creatures and it is time to act.  Since everyone in Iowa is expected to have a gun, it is only fitting that the people with these guns be allowed to shoot something year around and our next candidate are raccoons.   Can’t you just visualize, or hear as the case may be, gunshots ringing out in the middle of the night in the neighborhood when the local coon is raiding somebody’s garbage can.  Trash day could become hazardous.  

But an act allowing for the killing of raccoons year around serves innumerable purposes:  it of course gets rid of raccoons, it gives an outlet to all our citizens who now have guns but don’t know what to do with them, it gives the legislature something to do to earn their per diem, and it attempts to give the public the idea that our legislators are actually accomplishing something.  With these things in mind, it is a certainty that a bill will be passed allowing us humans, to kill raccoons whenever it is personally decided that one’s neighboring raccoon is no longer cute, but a pest.  All will be well in la-la land once again.

Now, I for one, who have been living in Iowa most of his life, have been living peaceably and quietly with racoons the entire time except for  one winter when a war over dog food ended in a victory for the raccoons - -  by the end of the winter they could get into my garage to get the remaining dog food but I couldn’t.  This defeat at the paws of the coons did not cause me to wish them dead.  After the initial annoyance, I had to congratulate them on their ingenuity, perseverance, and intelligence - - some of the same qualities for which we congratulate our star athletes.

So, if we are to have a vote on whether to kill raccoons all year or no, I will have to vote no.  An occasional annoyance does not warrant the death sentence.

Richard E H Phelps ii

Mingo

Nonsense

 NONSENSE

Americans have the right, long established and revered, in believing in nonsense.  In fact, it's constitutionally mandated that nonsense be held inviolate.  One is ostracized most vigorously when suggesting this.  The fact that a particular street needs resurfacing because of the increasing number of pot holes is not nonsense; to believe that the failure to do so will result in an economic debacle is nonsense however so many people may believe it.

I have suggested in the past that one follow our elected representatives on twitter for the full flavor of nonsensical pronouncements.  It would appear, although I have no proof, that our elected representatives have either a person specially hired to write nonsense  continually, all day long, or that someone has created an algorithm to do it for them for  the tweets purporting to come from them are regular and continuous.

These pronouncements haven't come to the point of suggesting the moon is made of cheese, but we are getting close.  Randy Feenstra and Joni Ernst both have twitterdomitis and continually have nonsense published under their names.  Now, this can be the result of only two things:  one, they are truly ignorant; or two, they have no shame.  Whichever the case, it reflects really poorly on the electorate - - those of us who vote.  It would seem to me, that if in fact we are "the greatest nation the earth has ever seen", as stated by Randy Feenstra, having people in power who spout nonsense, and not just once in a while but continuously, might lead to dubious results.

One of the quickest ways to determine if something that someone is saying is nonsense, is to ask them how they came to this particular opinion.   They will either not have an answer to the question or if so, it will be an unrelated matter (more nonsense) that is so illogical that it doesn't even bear a response.  As a most famous conservative once said about the pronouncements of  a locally notorious divine, "It's neither true nor false, it is nonsense".

So when someone makes a statement to you in a casual conversation which is clearly nonsense, the response must be that "What you are saying is neither true nor false, it's nonsense!"

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Can't Say

  CAN'T SAY

We want a lot less talk here in this country.  Scrolling through the  channels on satellite TV, you can see the outrage and obviously so.  It's these Americans of Arabic descent that feel they have the right to their own opinion of the situation in Israel and Gaza and, of all things, say as much.

Now, from what little I know of the situation, and it isn't much, the attack by Hamas has succeeded in achieving the only thing that it could possibly have accomplished - - an immediate and terrible response by Israel which is resulting in thousands of deaths of Hamas but mostly noncombatants.  Their own deaths and those of other Palestinians cannot possibly be the end goal.  

We must assume, and I know this may be difficult for some, that the people making the decisions for Hamas have the same level of intelligence as the rest of us.  They simply didn't just one day decide to commit societal suicide.  There has to be a bigger plan.  Even Hamas doesn't decide one day to slaughter a bunch of people just for grins.

What this leads to is our belief that we really need to be careful what we say: that here in the US of A,  we will punish all those who voice support for the Palastinians.  Anyone with any sense of history at all should see just how tenuous is our belief in free speech.  We have the right to voice our opinion as long as it is the officially approved opinion.  I am not advocating for Hamas nor the Palastinians; but more importantly I am not advocating for either.  What I observe is the always present undercurrent of intolerance which this country has always had and periodically surfaces when given the opportunity.

The situation in the Near East is extremely complicated; we, among others, have tried to solve it now for several generations without success.  Wiping out Hamas will not solve it and all those who have given it some thought realize this.  The people in Washington, in our government, understand this even if our public does not.  Simply razing Gaza will only make things worse.  Why do you suppose Hamas decided to do this now?  Could it be that it was because Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and others were prepared to finally accept Israel as a permanent fixture?  

The only thing apparent in all this is that thousands of people are dead and more thousands will be dead and for us sitting in our homes at night watching it, it is horrible and should never have happened; and these viewers are correct about one thing - - it should not have happened, but dismissing people from jobs or school or otherwise punishing people for their opinion is not a solution.  No one is advocating mass murder, but simply to react one way or the other is not productive; it doesn't make it go away.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

They're Mushrooms

 THEY'RE MUSHROOMS

On a drive-about that included Altoona, Bondurant, and Ankeny I saw dozens if not a hundred new,  massive structures, empty - - waiting for stuff to arrive by trucks to then leave again by trucks, possibly to another of the massive buildings a few miles away.  It is like a form of fungal reproduction.

Now I know that mushrooms reproduce through spores that apparently are airborne as the mushroom breaks the service of the ground, but there must be some sort of pollination going on here that I am not aware of.  I can think of nothing more analogous to these giant structures than huge, cavernous fungi.  They seem to pop up overnight.  And then there is stuff moving from one part of the building to another, from one building to another, having at one time moved from the point of manufacture and will end finally at the place where it will be consumed.

We now call this process the supply chain.  This is a new term that  entered our vocabulary when we experienced deprivation with COVID.  Suddenly, there were items not found.  This was viewed with horror.  For instance, toilet paper became a very valuable item.  The stores couldn't keep what little they had in stock for the pursuit of toilet paper by the public was ravenous.  What would we do without toilet paper?

Of the 350,000,000 people that live in this county, if the "supply chain" suddenly disappeared, 349,000,000 would have no food.  That is a thought that should get one's attention.  The fact that someone is gay or transgender or some other variety of human, would seem to be irrelevant.  No one would have anything to eat.  I suppose that is when the guns come out.  Of course, if everyone has a gun, that's when the real shooting begins.

If you and your children are starving, you do what you have to do to eat.  Simple really.  I often wonder about the things that we complain about, or argue about, or get upset with.  So our legislature doesn't like that our teachers actually acknowledge there are gay and transgender people in their schools.  The horror!  Is this what they are elected to think about?  What possible benefit does it do to anyone to pick on people other than to show you are a bully.

Unfortunately, it would appear that our legislators and our governor are bullies.  They showed it during the protest of Black Lives Matter, they are showing it in their actions against teachers and librarians, they are preparing laws to enact that are nothing but  to bully people they don't like for whatever reason they don't like them. 

We have a government of bullies, smug ones, believing that that is why they were elected - - to bully people.  I can only hope that the people who voted for them are not themselves bullies.  I find most people, when approached, are friendly and not bullies, and in fact, don't much care for one person bullying another. But they have elected a legislature full of bullies.  Seems incongruous.  I wish it weren't so.  Maybe you could suggest to your legislator that he or she begin thinking about the things that matter - - not who can go to which bathroom.

If you wonder how I made the transition from cavernous warehouses to bullies so quickly; it's called a mind that wanders uncontrollably.

Richard E H Phelps

Mingo

Hair Concerns

 HAIR CONCERNS

When traveling one should explore as much as possible, right?  Why else travel but to see and experience things one cannot see or do at home?  My visit to Central Market in Austin, Texas is illustrative.  In the aisle, of what I will call, personal products was an assortment of hair products, specifically shampoo.

To be clear, I'm not receiving any remuneration for writing about this particular product, presenting its remarkable features to a public that may be unaware of its existence.  The product is John Masters shampoo, conditioner, and hair spray sitting prominently on the shelf at eye level, leading me to believe that Central Market probably gets a kickback on sales, but not the point.

I counted four different shampoos with John Masters' logo:  1. a Volumizing Shampoo with Rosemary & Peppermint; 2. a Daily Nourishing Shampoo with Lavender & Rosemary; 3 a Scalp Stimulating Shampoo with Spearmint & Meadowsweet; 4. a Scalp Conditioning Shampoo with Zinc & Sage.  Also available  were a John Masters' Hair Spray with Acaciagum & Aloés, USDA organic, and a Daily Nourishing Conditioner with Citris & Neroli.  Upon reviewing this selection (of just one company's products), I could only ask myself - - What has happened to us?  But then I recanted.  I, among my contemporaries, are ultimate consumers - - this is what we do - - consume.  One needs to be able to discuss intelligently the pros and cons of lavender and rosemary vs spearmint and meadowsweet.

Unfortunately, I often feel I am lacking in the ability to be a modern American in this regard.  But travel, as is clear from my experience in the Central Market, is helpful.  I am certainly open to being informed - - why travel in the first place if not open to new things and experiences.  For me, Central Market was a new thing; and indeed, not only did they have shampoo but fresh octupi.  The Market was indeed a new experience and one I shall not forget for some time.  Not quite as spectacular as the Grand Canyon, but for us ultimate consumers, quite an adventure.  

I will have to admit, I purchased neither octupi nor shampoo.  The Walgreen's shampoo I normally purchase without essence of plants seem to work ok and it would be a considerable time without food before I could bring myself to eat octopus; both prejudices, I assume, resulting from the fact that living in rural Iowa, having been born in rural Iowa, and practicing law in rural Iowa where octupi are rarely seen and John Masters' hair products are not available, my sudden exposure to this massive and diverse quantity of purchasable products was difficult for me to comprehend and mentally digest - - being a rather rural person.  

Once again, the power of travel.  And even if I am still unsure about the relative benefits of rosemary and peppermint vs zinc and sage, I now know there are some and further investigation is necessary for me to continue to be a proper, modern-day, American consumer.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

I'm Grieving

 I'M GRIEVING

Representative Dunwell is grieving; and rightly so.  Consequently, Senate File 496, the recently enacted legislation requiring the banning of books in Iowa's public schools, was necessary.  The authority for this act, according to Representative Dunwell, is a short speech given by John Fletcher Moulton, Lord Moulton, a Cambridge mathematician and subsequently a London barrister.  The reference made to Lord Moulton was a short speech given at the Authors Club in London published as "Law and Manners" in 1924.

Accordingly, SF 496 addresses the vast area between the domain of "The Law" and the domain of "Free Choice".  Lord Moulton divided human behavior into three categories: (1) Those prescribed or prohibited "The Law", (2) Those allowed as "Free Choice", and (3) that huge area in between.  Lord Moulton called this  third area "Manners"; Representative Dunwell apparently calls it "Sin" which needs to be moved into category (1) "The Law".  The subject matter of Senate File 496 accordingly takes certain things out of the category of "In Between" and moves them to category 1: "The Law".  The area of "Free Choice" was apparently not considered, but that vast area in between "Law" and "Free Choice" now needs to be reviewed.  Hence, our legislature has moved the teaching of certain materials that currently (according to them) land in between the "The Law" and "Free Choice" into the land of "The Law".  I realize this is all somewhat confusing, but don't blame me.

Apparently, Lord Moulton thought that the manners of the public needed some correction and he thought possibly some Biblical references might do the trick.  As we can all see, it didn't.  Now Representative Dunwell has somehow come across this short speech of Lord Moulton now entitled "Obedience to the Unenforceable".  If one Googles it, it comes up numerous times and apparently is often quoted by current divines and others.  This appears to be the authority for SF 496.

I do find it interesting that Lord Moulton had a correspondence with Charles Darwin - - obviously the two were acquainted.  Lord Moulton didn't think much of Herbert Spenser's adoption of Mr. Darwin's biological theories to human society, such as the concept of "natural selection".  But it would seem that Lord Moulton actually accepted Darwin's work as an advancement in human knowledge. Oh woe is me to think that Representative Dunwell is referencing a man who considered Darwin's work as valid.  I think we need to rethink this entirely.  Lord Dunwell needs to retreat and reconsider his sources.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo