An Accomplishment

 

AN ACCOMPLISHMENT

I have been following as closely as I can the deportation efforts underway in this country.  It is quite an effort, or at least one is led to believe so.  Some people show up and take other people away just like that - - no warning, no allowance to get your affairs in order - - just like that you, the deportee, are whisked away to places unknown.

What I have been asking myself is "What is being accomplished by whisking people away without warning, without a hearing, without judicial notice, without anything?" All due to  some person, some organization having studied the information available and has targeted you to disappear.   The only similar situation, to my knowledge, is exactly how the Jews were disappeared in Germany.  The Gestapo or whomever, showed up one night and took you away and no one knew whereto.

But my question is "What is being accomplished?" From what I can gather nothing other than making life miserable for the people being disappeared.  I mean nothing ascertainable.  People are being disappeared who have been here for years, working, buying things, raising their children, paying into social security on which they will never get a return.  Legal or illegal, the vast majority of people coming to the United States are coming here for the same reason that people have always come here, for a new start.  That's why your ancestors came here.

Now I,  being a criminal defense attorney, am aware of the population of this country who do not work or if they do, under the table for a few bucks to get something to eat, the population who spend most of their time being high, getting high, finding the drugs to get them high or are otherwise simply dysfunctional.  These people are American citizens who can not be deported and who contribute nothing to the society in which they live; they have a negative value.  And yet, we want to deport people who work, pay their bills, and actually contribute.  To my way of thinking the current efforts are counter productive.

Now we, the people, seemingly have always needed a scapegoat, a group who one is required to dislike and be rid of.  For years now, we have heard that these illegal immigrants are bad, do bad things, and are otherwise undesirable.  This has been the mating call of the Republican Party for years  and as with many things to our uninformed citizenry, you hear it often enough it becomes factual.

And, it's just nonsense.

Richard E H Phelps II

                                Mingo

It's Simply Motivational

 IT'S SIMPLY MOTIVATIONAL

It truly is wonderful to see.  We all have heard of, or attempted to read, or discussed with colleagues the issue of motivation.  It has gone through various life  forms in the business schools of the country, it is always a topic of wonder in schools of psychology and other forms of the social sciences, historians often discuss it in the guise of historical figures and events.  It is a marvelous topic of conversation and always raises disputes as to its source. 

What we have currently though is motivation in its simplest form:  personal animosity.  Not many people either historically or currently have the ability to act, to be motivated, by personal animosity.  It is a wondrous thing to see.  And what is so great about it is we can view it on display daily in the guise of the current president of the United States.  As one example, look at the misfits and yahoos who he has appointed and who have been confirmed by the Senate.

When one actually listens to Trump's pronouncements of actions to be taken or not taken, two things rise to the surface:  One is pure whim and the other is personal animosity.  Whim has no motivation, but is simply that - whim.  Personal animosity, though, can and does allow for motivation in those with the power to exercise it.

From what I can gather from a lifetime of reading, it takes a society such as Rome a significant period to gather together in one place the power necessary for personal animosity and whim to rule.  You suppose the Egyptians came to the same?  It's as conceivable as any other demise.  We, the United States, meaning us, have had a relatively short duration in which to accumulate the power necessary for personal animosity and whim to rule the dictates of the man in charge; but we have, much to  our surprise.  We've always said that it can't happen here.  Well it has.  We have a president of the United States whose ignorance is unparalleled and whose decisions are dictated purely by whim and personal animosity.  We haven't reached the level of Caligula, but we have a man as president whose actions are either unpredictable as pure whimsy or very predictable as pure personal animosity.

Folks, we apparently have reached a stage in our evolution as a country and society which signifies the beginning of the end.  This beginning may be a very long beginning, but it is a beginning.  It is a situation where nothing but the personal controls the decisions that affect us all as a participant in an empire; you can't call us a country simply.  As the Roman emperors squabbled and fought, the empire kept building roads and amphitheaters - - for a while - -  just as we keep building skyscrapers, palatial estates on the coast, and aircraft carriers.  But it came to an end as we shall.

It is hard to witness - - the level of malfunction and misdirection existing in our leadership.  It is more sad to see the acceptance given to this man who calls himself president.  It is not just Trump.  The people of this country are apparently ready for such a leader and they have him. Our politicians have realized this and parrot the public sentiment.  If one were to give this some thought however, a seemingly difficult thing to do, one must be extremely pessimistic. It's one thing to get rid of a president, quite another to change the public who supports him.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

We Support Them

 

WE SUPPORT THEM

Representative Miller-Meeks has made further pronouncements in which she is in favor of law and order and for that reason fully supports the people employed in law enforcement who believe in keeping us safe, i. e. the police.  Let me say immediately, that police and other law enforcement are necessary components of any modern society.  If someone breaks into your house, you want someone to at least attempt to find out who did it.  Or if you get beat up on a street corner, it would be gratifying to know the person was arrested.  Technically speaking, police do not "fight crime", they punish those who commit it.  There is no such thing as "fighting crime"; "crime" is what people do when they do things that have been deemed criminal by a legislature. We have currently the view that police are good and that's that - - end of analysis. This is why we, in this state, are being rid of our municipal police oversight commissions.  Our legislature is of the opinion that police are good and that is the end of it.  We don't need any oversight.

I, however, having practiced criminal law in this state for more years than I want to count, I say it's not so simple.  One can not argue with the proposition that there are capable lawyers and those not so capable; there are capable doctors and doctors not so capable, there are real estate agents that do good work and some not so good, there are pharmacists that are excellent and those not so excellent.  This is why we have established commissions or committees or bureaus, whatever you may call them, to make inquiry when they receive complaints about the services they have received from their doctor or their lawyer or their real estate agent or their pharmacist.

Representative Miller-Meeks has joined, if not a permanent member, of those who state that of all the occupations that can be thought of or exist, police are the one group of people who need no oversight.  These are the people who can put you in jail; these are the people who enforce the rules one needs to follow to get to work; these are the people who cost you money in the form of bail; these are the people who when they take you to jail force you to leave behind the family, the pets, the job, etc.  These are the people that can cause you damage, discomfort, loss of income, and serious inconvenience.  But they are the only profession that needs no oversight apparently. 

In addition, take a look at an officer or a deputy when you converse with them; take an inventory of the equipment they have on their person; take an inventory of the equipment they have in their squad car.   It is as if they have prepared for battle with the Taliban.  These are the people who need no oversight, but they are the one group of people who, at their fingertips, have the ability and equipment to do you serious harm.

I am not against the police and I am not against the deputies, but I do know good ones from bad ones.  They both exist just as they exist in every occupation.  Refusing to admit to this appears to be simply another pathetic effort to make public statements that get votes from people who have never given it a thought or who have never had an interaction with law enforcement.  Every function necessary for a successful society needs oversight.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Let's Talk Policy

 LET'S TALK POLICY

A favorite word of politicians - "policy".  Lately we have been informed that Biden's policies were disastrous and the current policies are beneficial and worth having.  If one were to look up and attempt to analyze the term "policy", one would come away with a jumble of explanations of what a policy is, who has policies, who should have policies, what are the characteristics of policies, what do policies do, etc.

A dislike is not a policy, nor is an approval.  Now if a person doesn't like something or doesn't approve of some behavior, a policy may indeed follow.  For instance, you don't like the fact that Haitians are coming to Iowa to work in our meat packing plants, therefore, you want the government to find ways to discourage them from coming.  Unfortunately, there are laws in existence that encourage these Haitians to come and work in meat packing plants.  What do we do about that?  We create a policy that makes it difficult for them to comply with whatever requirements are necessary for their entry.  The laws are still there, but not implemented in the manner intended.

What we do is,  we direct the people who are to implement current statutes to cease implementing them in a timely manner or in a manner that creates more difficulty for the people applying.  In other words, make it difficult to comply with the requirements that must be met by the people who need to meet them.  This would be a policy. A necessary element of a policy is organization.  Without an organization to either implement a policy or eliminate a policy, policies are simply unfulfilled wish-fulfillment.

A policy then, can be the effort made to either fulfill a legal requirement or to keep it from being implemented.  The current administration's policies appear to be the latter.  The proclamations coming from Washington appear unanimously to be of the type that are meant to inhibit the implementation of the laws as they currently exist.  For instance, when you have a policy of detaining an immigrant without a hearing or due process, because they have not met some minor requirement necessary to remain here legally, it is the implementation of a policy.

The executive branch of the United States government, and I will not stop to explain what that is, has immense power with or without particular policies.  And when the executive branch of the government has as a policy of delaying, obfuscating, or otherwise disabling the implementation of duly passed legislation as is occurring at present, you have an administration that feels free to do what it wants through policy.

So if one were to determine, for instance, that Biden encouraged immigration and Trump discourages immigration, one would get from that a difference in policy.  When you consider policy in this way, you have an executive branch of government which considers the actions of the legislative branch of government as simple suggestions, not legal requirements.  The legislature can pass a law requiring certain actions from the executive branch but if the leadership of the executive branch is not thrilled with a particular law, it will be very difficult to implement it - - because of policy contrary to its effective implementation.

So there you have it - - policy.  Sometimes official, sometimes unofficial, sometimes open, sometimes secret, but always influential.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Really Unnecessary

 REALLY UNNECESSARY

Recently, trading in a new knee for an old one, a non-working one, I was asked in each room I entered, my date of birth.  And I am not exaggerating: I  was asked in every room I entered with the possible exception of the actual operating room itself.  I could have been asked there as well, but don't remember much about that particular room.

I have used the same pharmacy for a number of years.  When I sign for the meds at the desk or counter, I'm asked my birthdate.  Now these people in the pharmacy know me.  I am known to them.  They know my name; they know that I am not an imposter picking up someone else's thyroid medication.  The idea that someone would be impersonating me for the purpose of obtaining my thyroid medication, knowing that it was suddenly available for pickup, is ludicrous.  The people that ask this question will tell you that they are required to do so and even they think it a stupid thing to do.

The employees of these establishments are being required to act in this way.  Acting in a stupid manner apparently has some perceived benefit to their employers.  What that benefit is, is hard to discern but there must be one, right?  One would think that the employees of these establishments would object to being required to act in a purposeless, meaningless, and demeaning manner.

On the other side of this purposeless, meaningless, and demeaning matter is me.  This requirement to give my birthdate in every room I enter or to pick up my meds in the pharmacy which I always use is very, and I repeat, very troubling.  First, as I have already stated, it is a worthless effort.  Secondly, it is stupid.  Thirdly, it is demeaning.  What you are being told by the question itself is that you, as the paying customer, are not to be trusted; that you may be an imposter; and because you may be an imposter, you may be getting a service or product for free.  This requirement is clearly based on the belief that we, the customers, are not trustworthy and to protect the income of the establishment we are to be treated as potential thieves and ne'er-do-wells.  How do you like that?  We are not to be trusted; we are potentially there to get something for nothing and by giving our birth date for the umpteenth time will keep that from happening.

Just think, I may have changed my identity moving from one room  in the medical clinic to another to get a new knee I wasn't even signed up for - - but I knew I needed one and somehow I knew which part of the body was going to be mended by surgery that day so I somehow arranged the person for whom the surgery was intended to leave the clinic between rooms without consulting anyone because of some emergency and I became the patient.   In the alternative, you can't keep track of your own patients which is even more troubling, but not my problem.

Or, some person needing thyroid medication knew that I had a prescription for it and their prescription bottle was empty and also knew that the pharmacy had contacted me about the prescription being ready for pickup and that when picking it up no one would recognize the person as an imposter.  

This requirement, of which I speak, is both stupid and demeaning and we the public really should not allow ourselves to be treated as if we are dishonest imbeciles.

Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo

Apes of God II

 APES OF GOD II

I have made several attempts at properly discussing APES OF GOD, especially in the context of Books for Bigots, but am having a rather difficult time of it. My first effort was not satisfactory.  It was a book not easy to read, especially to the very end, where nothing was resolved but the pet, the prop, the toy of Horace Zagreus, Dan Boleyn, receives a get-lost letter from Horace. Dan has been replaced with Margolin.

To get the flavor of the nastiness of the characters in this book, a characteristic that most Bigots might appreciate if they could understand it, Boleyn, sent from Ireland by his parents to London, obviously to be rid of him, is seized upon by Horace as a display prop to show his friends and acquaintances.   Much of the book is set at or around the Lenten Party of the aristocrat Lord Osmund which takes up approximately 250 pages of the book.

Dan is a simpleton, pretty much a vacuum, who is called a genius by Horace, his handler, and, consequently, not only believes himself to be a genius, but also  believes himself a painter without having painted.  Horace, who is the cause of this belief, calls Dan a genius, claims he is a genius when introducing him to his friends and acquaintances but is simply  treated as a prop for display and as a conversation piece.

The world of Lord Osmund, the masquerade costume Lenten Party, is a magnificent piece of absurdity, meanness, and contentlessness, if such a word exists.  If it is your bent to spend a day eating, drinking, making nasty remarks to and about those with whom you dine, Lord Osmund's Lenten Party is for you.

Dan Boleyn, through whose eyes we view the action of the book, is made to display himself nude to be painted by a female painter to whom he was sent, and then put into a dress to finish the book.  The reader is aware of what and how Dan thinks about wearing this dress at the party and comes away, as does Dan, without being sure about what it all means.  There is always the undertone of homosexuality here.

Dan is directed and displayed.  He has no will, no ability to determine his own actions, he is simply directed in all respects for the amusement of others.  When you think about this, it is possible that a Bigot would appreciate this situation and get some decent tips on how to further his Bigotry in his own home and community.  After all, Bigotry consists in the direction and use of other human beings to satisfy one's own beliefs.  Maybe a Bigot could get some tips here.

Consequently, I will maintain that APES OF GOD, if able to get past the title, and actually delve into the book, a Bigot might find some instruction available in how-to Bigotry.  It would take a lot of effort though; too much probably.  Therefore, I will have to say, with some misgivings, that this book can not be recommended to Bigots.

Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo

It's Just Better

 IT'S JUST BETTER

It's just better.  And, it must be. Representative Marianette Miller-Meeks says it is; that it is better now than it was 100 days ago with Biden as President.  I know I'm better, that's for sure and I am just as sure you, the reader, are better as well.  For after all, it has been pronounced as such by those who should know - - our elected representatives.

This is for the reason that she, and others such as her, are fighting for our safety, jobs, and freedom.  She does gloat over the SAVE Act which she helped sponsor and we all know about that.  I feel a lot freer now than before that was passed.  She was also, as she proclaims, present when President Trump acted to protect  female athletes from surreptitious males.  I'm trying to figure out how this one fits in with "safety, jobs, and freedom", but I'm working on it.

What is really much better is that President Trump has reversed "disastrous policies".  I for one do not appreciate "disastrous policies" and am glad they are no more, whatever those policies may have been.  It certainly is a relief.

And oh!  What is to be done?  The tax bill of course.  Certain groups of our citizens feel it necessary for their taxes to be reduced.  These are the citizens who actually have money to pay taxes and they want to pay as little as possible.  Those who don't pay any taxes shouldn't have a say since they aren't affected.

Now, the underlying premise of this opinion piece by Representative Miller-Meeks is the idea that her readership, those who would see her pronouncements, don't know anything.  One simply can not  agree or disagree with these statements of self-aggrandizement since they are nonsense and have no meaning other than to enhance one's reputation amongst those who know nothing and will agree to anything.

It is interesting isn't it that our elected representatives act upon the premise that the voting public doesn't know anything.  And, since they continue to be elected, there must be something to it.  Anyone who gets exercised by Hondurans electing our president, or one more person coming to our country because there are actually jobs to be filled here, or rich people having to pay some taxes really ought to quit watching TV and find something beneficial to do.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo