Welfare

Over the years I have heard more complaints than I can count that welfare payments are simply a form of taking from those who deserve the money they make and giving to those who won't work and don't deserve money they get. This misses the point entirely. Welfare is simply another method of controlling the lower classes and it works very well. The person giving the money has control over the person receiving the money; this fact can hardly be disputed. In the case of welfare, it is the government giving the money, and the poor, uneducated, dysfunctional people receiving it. Without this monthly stipend, the government would have only the police to keep these people under control. With welfare, the Department of Human Services is created and staffed for the purpose. Social workers in the guise of helping those who need the help are in fact the second wave of enforcers of morality, public order, and discipline. Where the police are unable to justify throwing someone in jail, the social workers are called in to deal with the schizophrenics, the terminally depressed, and the other misfits who have lost what little housing they have or their residences are too full of mice and cockroaches to be habitable. Social workers are paid to monitor the activities of these folks; to act as payees, to ensure that the rent is paid, and to prohibit them from making nuisances of themselves. Giving someone several hundred dollars a month is quite cost effective. Without the monthly stipend, Walmart's loss prevention officers would be overwhelmed, beggars would suddenly appear in the streets, burglaries and robberies would multiply. All this would be very annoying to us decent folk who go to work every day and do what we are told. I have attempted to explain this to my Republican friends without success. The opinion continues to hold that these people should take responsibility for their own lives and not be supported by the rest of us. I think they should make up some posters and place them in various locals around our urban areas where these people live. This might make the difference. Once they read the exhortations on the posters, behaviors will immediately change and peace will reign. The fact remains though, the fact which remains unacknowledged, is that what should be is different from what is. It would be paradisical if what should be actually was reality; but it isn't and it would be better if we acknowledge it so we can deal with it.

Paid to Think

In a world of jobs, thinking is not a requirement. Thinking, in fact, is a detriment to productivity. One does not pay the stocker at HyVee to think nor the person at the cash register at McDonalds. The last thing an employer of these people wants is a workforce who spends its time on the job thinking about anything. The common opinion on teenagers working, which make up the vast majority of these employees in these jobs, is that they are good training and experience for adulthood. And in fact they are wonderfully good training for a career of working without thought which is expected of most of us most of the time. An exception to this mandated life without thought is the legal profession. The idea of thinking is an integral part of the law school curriculum. For many this is a difficult concept to grasp and even more difficult to practice. It is a new experience for most and thinking can be difficult if one has never done it. A large number who enter law school leave shortly thereafter having soon come to the conclusion that thinking is not for them. A graduate of law school really doesn't know much more than when he matriculated; but presumably the graduate now has the ability to actually think about issues presented. Unfortunately lawyers fall into the general malaise of the nonthinking population by limiting their thinking processes to their professional duties. They, like the general population, identify. They identify with a political party, a religious organization, a social network. Once this has been accomplished, no thinking is required. That job has already been done. There exists nothing in daily life that requires thought. And by thought I do not mean deciding on what to have for dinner or whether or not to put an addition on the house. Being a creative chef or builder of additions are activities, not thinking. For most of us, when not working we are engaged in activities. Activities are another substitute for thought. The major activity appears to be television. One can not drive down the street looking through windows, day or night, and if anyone is present, the television is on. Some engage in more than one activity at any given time such as watch television and cook. Thinking requires two things, at a minimum: effort and knowledge. Without facts one has nothing to think about and without effort the facts are de minimis. One only needs a brief discussion with a high school graduate to realize that our public schools are not in place to produce thinking adults; they exist to incorporate and indoctrinate but most importantly they inculcate respect for authority. An example of this is the successful effort by the schools to convince our children that it is great to be an American; that America is the greatest country in the world. I'm not saying that it isn't, but why is it or why may it not be. This is something we definitely do not want our citizens to give thought to.

Punishment

Have you ever thought about the concept of punishment? Where did this idea come from? God punishes sinners; parents punish children; governments punish citizens. It seems that underlying each of these is control. If you can not punish someone, you can not control them. Punishment is not revenge or retaliation. Revenge and retaliation arise from impulses distinct from controlling others; they are more primitive. But punishment implies power; without power one is unable to punish or to control others. Throughout history men have imprisoned, killed, maimed, and tortured other men as exhibition of power. It must be very satisfying to know that you can control other people by punishing them. Presumably the justifications for controlling others are as many as those who have the power to do so; but it is based on one unconvertible idea which is that the person with power is superior to the person without it. I am sure that this subject has been discussed by people wiser than myself, but it would seem to me that power is a gift from one person to another. In order for a person to have power over me, I must allow it to happen, I must give him the power to do so. Without my acquiescence, no one can control me. There are folks who refuse to be controlled. A good example are some of those who I represent who have used, continue to use, and will use in the future illegal substances. They refused to stop using them whether it is a crime or not. Our governments, especially the federal government, has decided that they will simply put these people in cages and keep them from these illegal substances for most if not all of their lives. It is not that these people are particularly dangerous or harmful to others; they are simply uncontrollable. They will not do what they are told to do. And since they will not do what they are told not to do, the government will insure that they don't by placing them in cages where they will be told what to do every waking moment of the day. They will be told when to eat, what to eat, when to sleep, what to watch on tv, what activities they are allowed to do, etc. They are now controlled 24 hours a day year after year, decade after decade. It is simply this: if you do not voluntarily act in the manner proscribe by us, then you will do what we say, every time we say it, all the time, where we have complete control of you every moment of the day. It is no more complicated that this.

To Clone or Not to Clone

In 2007 the Iowa legislature suddenly determined that human cloning should be a felony. I'm unaware that there was much human cloning activity, but it is possible that the Department of Vital Statistics may have the information of who of our acquaintances are cloned and who actually have parents. I don't recall the impetus for the bill which would subject a cloner up to 10 years in the penitentiary, but I suspect it was religious in nature having in view that only God should be able to create man not other men. Now, of course, this view has no rational basis, but if one thinks about it, there are certain difficulties associated with cloning. For instance, how does probate work? Does a clonee inherit from the adults who raised him or her? Who inherits from a clonee? These are questions that would be what we call in the trade "cases of first impression". Another difficulty that would present itself is obtaining a credit card. I don't know how many times I have had to give as the secret word, my mother's maiden name. Since a clonee doesn't have a mother, this suggests that credit card companies need to change the secret word to something other than your mother's maiden name. This would cost money. Holiday dinners would certainly be different. Most clonees would be eating Thanksgiving dinner by themselves or at the local restaurant; but conversely, many fewer Christmas presents would be purchased saving hundreds of dollars. And since most families have at least one person who they never want to see, that problem would be solved. So there are benefits as well. Bastard, though no longer a pejorative term since half the children born in the United States today are bastards, would no longer be on the bottom rung of the social ladder. As the Indian custom of castes, clonees would be a rung below bastard since bastards have at least one identifiable parent. Bastards would be pleased with this raise in status and should, by all accounts, support cloning. I think we need to send out a state-wide questionnaire to determine how many clonees exist in the state. Once we have identified them, we can assess their intelligence and moral character to determine whether clonees are superior or inferior to the normal uncloned person within the state. It is my view that it would take a rather slipshod effort on the part of the cloner to produce inferior people, but be that as it may, we would have some statistics to work with. And if it were found that clonees on the average were of higher intelligence, more productive, better citizens than noncloned people, we should address our legislature with this knowledge and ask them to reconsider the crime of cloning.

Paranoia Plus

If you pay any attention whatsoever, you may have noticed that police stations, courthouses, the capitol, government buildings now have gate guards, many with screening devises to check for dangerous implements. This is a relative recent phenomenon, but one that has been gaining speed for a number of years. When you ask about this, the response is universally-security. It is to protect the people who work in these buildings. But let us think about this for a moment; something I often ask. Immediately several questions surface. For one, from whom are the people working in these buildings to be protected? The answer is, from you and me. I must take everything from my pockets to enter the Polk County Courthouse. The last time I was in the Iowa State Capitol I also was required to take everything from my pockets. The federal courthouse is the most difficult of entrance. There one must practically disrobe. I not only have to show my ID to people who know me, but I must take off my belt and shoes too if they contain metal shanks. Personally I find these requirements disrespectful. I am viewed as a potential threat to the safety of the people who work in the building. In many of these buildings, if not most, people are in possession of a vast number of firearms, weapons of all kinds, ammunition in sufficient quantity to hold off a siege. There is significant symbolism in the behavior of the people working for the government; of the government itself. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this behavior is that governments and the people who work for governments are afraid of the public-the people who they are employed to serve. Public places should be places where people want to go; to feel welcome. This is not the case. Every level of security makes the visit to a public place, such as a courthouse, more foreboding, more difficult, less welcoming. As a result the public goes to the courthouse only when required. It is no longer a place to hang out and see what is happening in the halls of justice. The federal courthouse is the most deserted. I'm not sure that one would even be allowed entrance unless one could articulate a specific reason for the visit. What this discussion leads to, especially in regard to the federal government, is that they are afraid of us--you and me. This is not good. Fear easily leads to oppression and repression; one may only look around the world to see how easily governments slaughter their own citizens because they fear them. This is not to say that the federal government will begin slaughtering the citizens of this country, but fear is a continuum; it travels from low to high, from a little to a lot, and it moves up and down. Fear is harmful; it is the cause of irrational behavior and it sets the government apart from its citizens. From being all in this together; it becomes us against them. With the level of security we experience in dealing with our government, the conclusion is easy to reach that the government is not for us but against us. But as with many things, there seems to be no solution. When voicing concerns over building security, the response is normally one of disdain or suspicion; you are either ignorant of life in modern society, or are callous of the safety of those employed to protect you.

Traveling Arrestees

Its a considerable inconvenience to be arrested a thousand miles from home. As one goes hither and thither across this great country of ours one comes upon various constabularies all alert to the slightest infractions of the jurisdictions one traverses. Occasionally the traveler needs gas, food, refreshment, toilet or some such necessity and stops at a local establishment. It is good policy to pay for what you receive. Some don't and are then chased down, arrested, taken to jail, and required to post bond to continue on their way. Once gone it is difficult to return for the required court appearances, especially if one resides a thousand miles distant. The traveler, now the defendant, believes that the matter should be resolved without a return trip to the scene of the crime. The local judge and prosecutor, depending upon the seriousness of the infraction, believe otherwise and hence, we have a situation. With no defendant appearing in court at the appointed time, a warrant will issue and the bond forfeited. Now if the alleged infraction is not a felony, the warrant will be limited to Iowa-usually. However, this could also be rather inconvenient if the defendant is either an over-the-road truck driver or a frequent traveler on our Interstate 80. Detours can be expensive and time consuming. If, for instance, one is traveling from Chicago to Omaha, traveling around Iowa would add considerable distance to the trip. Of course, the defendant, now the absconder, will be just fine traveling through Iowa as long as he does not come to the attention of the authorities. I suggest he not drive, especially his own vehicle. As defense counsel to the absconder, one is compelled to tell him that the warrant will not exceed the limit of the state boundaries, or he can actually come back to the state and resolve the issue which by this time will more than likely entail spending some time in the county jail. Neither of these two solutions seems reasonable to the absconder who voices the opinion that his lawyer should just be able to take care of it with maybe a fine; that he is working and can not miss work; does not have a car that can go that far; is in the middle of a divorce and can not leave; or is now on probation in his state of residence and can not receive permission to come to Iowa. All very legitimate reasons for not presenting himself to the court, but not sufficient. In cases like these I don't expect ever to see my client again unless he is foolish enough to drive through and again come to the attention of the authorities. I just make sure that the money has arrived for his representation.

Off to Jail We Go

Having been charged with a simple misdemeanor, not in the presence of law enforcement, the officer has the option of citing the person, mailing it to him, setting a time for the person to appear in court; or in the alternative, the officer can arrest the person and haul them off to jail. The maximum embarrassment, inconvenience, and loss to the person is to arrest him at work in the middle of the day so that all fellow employees are aware, his boss will fire him, and it will cost to pay a bondsman to be released from jail. This is exactly what some police officers will do. It doesn't concern them that you are a single parent working at a crappy job or live in the community with kids in school where the news will soon spread that their parent was hauled off to jail for some heinous crime. You see, if you are charged with a crime, you have instantly lost the respect of all decent people which obviously includes law enforcement personnel. Whatever embarrassment, loss of wages, stranded kids or pets are caused by the arrest, it doesn't matter, you deserve it. This does not apply to all law enforcement, I will be the first to testify. Many police, deputies, troopers, etc. are decent guys trying to do the best they can; but there are some and we know who they are, that love it. Whether it simply be a love of authority, meanness of spirit, or a combination thereof, some will go out of there way to make life difficult for you. They take pleasure in making your life miserable. These are the officers that you most often see in court as well. Simple courtesy will save court time. Just as there are individuals you see month after month, year after year in court, there are officers you see in court week after week waiting to testify on their time off or during hours they should be sleeping. These are the officers that piss people off; these are the officers who would not be in court if they had used a little common courtesy on those they have arrested or cited. It is not unusual to speak with someone in court or hear a case where the defendant had little or no defense but was so angry he fought the charge knowing he will lose. No solution presents itself. The varieties of human character found in the public are found in law enforcement. Mean, petty, and abusive law enforcement has always existed and always will. We have done a rather good job in this country in minimizing it, but here and there it pops up and we must deal with it as we find it. When this happens to you, if ever it does, the most important thing is-don't go down without a fight.