Never Ending Adolescence

 NEVER ENDING ADOLESCENCE

It is moving to see an entire state of adult males reenacting adolescence; thinking to themselves that they are the good in The Good, Bad, and the Ugly: Clint Eastwood wannabes passing legislation.  Now that's what I voted for!

It's the wild west all over again:  fighting Indians and cattle rustlers and other ne'er-do-wells out here in the fields of corn and soybeans.  Vigilantes patrolling in their Jeeps with their AR-15s looking for something to shoot.  You simply can't have an AR-15 if you can't shoot it.  The same goes with any other firearm.  After all they cost money and the bullets are expensive as well.  If you have a gun, you need to shoot it once in a while to see if you can actually hit what you aim at.

This last issue is the most concerning.  It would appear, from what I see and read, that the vast majority of post-adolescents with guns can't hit the first thing they shoot at; nor the last for that matter.   Have you ever sat down in a restaurant for a nice relaxing meal and the table next to you looks like a posse comitatus convention.  Somewhat disconcerting.  Not only are you not convinced they can hit what they aim at, but you're uncertain what would cause them to start shooting in the first place.

This fascination with firearms really is an indication of the level of maturity of the adult male population in this state - - 13.  You can't say differently; there is no evidence to back up a different conclusion than age thirteen.  The world is apparently full of evil doers as one president mentioned and apparently Iowa has its share.  And since the only movies and books we see or read are about superheroes saving whole cities from mayhem, it's no wonder.  

Our adult male population, sadly of which I am one, has failed to advance from adolescence and is just stuck in some mirage of old westerns and cops and robbers movies which have no relation to current reality.  Bonnie and Clyde are dead; so is Geronimo.  Put the guns away!

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Self-Driving

 SELF-DRIVING

A rather stupid description of a motor vehicle that drives on its own, without human input, properly programmed to get its passengers safely to their destination.  Does a vehicle have a self?  But this is a question for another day.   My question now is:  If I'm in the driver's seat finishing my third scotch, am I guilty of driving while intoxicated.  Yes, I can re-establish control of my machine, but I haven't.  I didn't run that last red light either, my machine did that on its own.  Am I guilty of a traffic violation?

I say no.  How can I be guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence if I'm not operating a motor vehicle?  How can I be guilty of running a stop sign, if I'm not operating the vehicle?  Again I say no.  Not guilty.

Is anyone guilty of driving while drunk if the car is operating without guidance from any human?  Is anyone guilty of running a stop sign if no one is operating the vehicle?  Are you going to convict the vehicle of running the stop sign?  And if so, what is the punishment?  Interesting questions.  I'm sure our current legislatures will come up with something that makes no sense and, in addition, causes people grief unnecessarily.  Maybe they can take away its driving privilege for a specific period of time like they do with people.

What they will come up with is that you are required to be sober in a moving, self-driving vehicle in the event of an emergency.  Suddenly my vehicle doesn't see that three-year old standing in the street with a sucker.  Am I, the inebriated passenger of that vehicle, required to be paying attention?  Why do I need to pay attention if the car is driving itself,  it has the destination programmed in, and it will get me there without any involvement from me whatsoever?  The answer is clearly - - I don't.  So the car runs over the three-year old - - how is that my fault?  It's not.

So punish the car, not me.  After all, our legislative bodies find punishment necessary and beneficial.  They believe in punishment so now they can punish self-driving vehicles.  After all, you really can't say they are inanimate since they drive themselves.  Really, many times there is no reason for anyone to even be in the vehicle - - maybe it's running an errand.  Do I need to be in the car when it goes through the pick-up line at the grocery store or through the drive up liquor store to replenish my supply?  No, of course not.  So take the car's driver's license, not mine.  That will make our legislators feel better thinking they actually have accomplished something.

So the solution seems to be to require self-driving machines to have their own driver's licenses.  It will re-establish the idea that driving is a privilege and not a right and make it applicable to machines as well as humans.  Seems fair enough.  My self-driving machine should not have the right to drive when I only have the privilege.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

A Symbiotic Relationship

 A SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP

One definition of a symbiotic relationship is a close, prolonged association between two or more biological species.  The association can be either mutually advantageous or it can be parasitic where one party benefits and the other is harmed.  We have here in this country a powerful and long-standing symbiotic relationship between what we term the "drug task force" and the drug trade.  In this relationship, the "drug task force" owes its existence to the drug trade - - without the drug trade, no "drug task force"; it is a parasitic relationship - - it benefits the "drug task force" and harms those in the drug trade.

As one of the more memorable statements in the movie, The Outlaw Josey Wales, "There ain't no end in doin' right."  This should be, if it is not, the motto of the "drug task force".  The "drug task force" is "doin' right".  The last thing that the "drug task force" wants or desires is the end of the drug trade. Without it,  no "drug task force", no more "doin' right", no more symbiotic relationship.  Keep drugs illegal is the motto of the "Drug Task Force". 

Currently, the end of the illegality of marijuana is on the horizon.  This is a prospect that is extremely alarming to the drug task forces  of America.  Not only is marijuana so pervasive that it has given unlimited employment to the "drug task force", but methamphetamine can be found everywhere as well.  There is so much of both, that the "drug task force" doesn't know where to begin - - they are befuddled but gainfully employed; and if marijuana is made legal, it may be the end of the need for so much employment.  However, don't despond, our legislatures are attempting to fill the gap with the new incarceration statutes for fentanyl and other and newer substances our innovative chemists come up with so there is always hope.

One is invited to feel sorrow for the "drug task force", but let's not, ok?  The "drug task force" has as its number one function the making of life more miserable for people whose lives are already sufficiently miserable to want some release with substances which make them feel better, if only temporarily.  The second purpose of the "drug task force" is to felonize the public as much as possible; to deny as many people as possible the right to vote.  Once a felon, you can't vote which is the main purpose of creating felonies. The government has the right to decide who can vote and who can't and the fewer the people who can vote, the easier it is to control those who remain able; hence the "drug task force".  

As can be seen, the creation of the "drug task force" was a necessary tool of government control of the public. It has worked a miracle in that way.  The threat of lengthy incarceration for possession of a substance deemed "illegal", has the desired effect on those who really don't feel the necessity of being locked away behind bars and prison walls, true.  And it doesn't adversely affect those who really don't care much one way or the other - - their lives will not be much different incarcerated where we, as taxpayers can support them; they normally don't vote in any event.  But as we can plainly see, millions of people in this country use illegal substances, who will, if caught, lose their right to vote, do jail time, land on probation or parole and otherwise be tightly controlled by the government without the ability to decide who makes the rules.

The war on drugs was sold to the public as something necessary - - to keep us from falling into the pit of abuse, despondency, and unproductiveness.  It has so succeeded in selling this to the public that hardly a contrary word can be heard.  One always should remain suspicious when the organs of publicity are unanimous; there is usually something missing.  Therefore, explanations are usually beneficial and it is hoped that this somewhat limited treatment of symbiosis is helpful.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

A Missed Opportunity

 A MISSED OPPORTUNITY

We have missed a great opportunity and by we I mean Jasper County.  A very large metal cage has appeared in a back room on the third floor of the county courthouse.  It apparently has been built without much notice or publicity and it has simply appeared.  The opportunity that we have missed is its location.

There is no reason to hide the fact that we now have a cage to put our refractory citizens in when having to appear for some reason at the courthouse.  The cage is quite close to the large courtroom, so it is convenient; but again, we really have missed this opportunity to showcase our malefactors.

If I had known that such a thing was to be constructed, I would have lobbied for it to be placed in the center of the rotunda on the main floor so that we can properly showcase the people we have incarcerated.  Historically, punishment has been a very public affair:  we had stocks, we had branding, we had tar and feathers, we had cages hung on high in public places holding people until they fell apart - - all sorts of public displays of people determined to be criminals.  It is a historically valid point of view and one that should not be dismissed out of hand.

Now, apparently, we hide the fact that we have people in cages - - they are not on public display and I think that is simply unacceptable.  If we are going to put a person in a metal cage in the courthouse, I think it should be where everyone can view it.  I would suggest one possibility, if not in the rotunda,  near where people vote during elections, but I don't think there is quite enough room for it.  Possibly we could have two small cages rather than one big one.  The electorate should be fully aware of what happens to people who misbehave.

Apparently, the construction of this cage was not generally known so little public input was available.  I really do think that when any renovations are to be done at the courthouse, the general public should be informed so that there is some input on the decisions to be made.  After all, it is a public place and the public should have some say in what is done with it and, after all, they are the ones who may end up in the cage.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

A Good Idea

 A GOOD IDEA

 

I read where Trump is proposing that drug dealers be executed.  You have to give the guy credit for coming up with a good idea once in a while.  Now, I presume he doesn’t mean pharmacists or other health professionals although I don’t believe he specified.

 

If you give, sell, donate, or otherwise transfer possession of an illegal or legal drug, say, you are technically a drug dealer.  This would apply to illegal substances as well as legal medications.  If you, for instance, have some oxycodone in the medicine cabinet and give one to a member of the family, being in excruciating pain, on your own without a prescription from a licensed physician, you are by definition a drug dealer liable to prosecution.

 

So, the question is:  Who will be put to death and who will not be put to death?  The answer to this question has significant consequences to a whole lot of people.  After all, one does not want to be put to death needlessly or for lack of a proper definition.

 

This statement by Trump comes, unfortunately,  at the waning of the war on drugs.  We have been fighting this war for several decades now and it’s not time, necessarily, that we move on to other wars, such as the war against sex.  And if you ask what the war on drugs has accomplished, it has given employment to thousands of people who otherwise would be unemployable.  Unfortunately the use of the mantra “Drugs destroy lives” has slowly ebbed.  We decided, as a nation, that in order to properly destroy lives the best way is by putting drug dealers in prison for decades and sometimes for life.  So, it is not a matter of destroying lives, but on how it is to be done.  Executing them is simply one further step in a process.

 

Of course, if you are dead, your life is destroyed by definition.  What we are talking about here is not how not to destroy lives, but on how and who is to do it.  Let’s be clear about that.  It is much better to have your life destroyed by the government than by illegal drugs. At least, having your life destroyed by the government has a purpose, to convince other people not to use or deliver illegal substances and that they are in charge, not you.  What could be clearer than that?

 

So once again, we need to give credit where credit is due and to congratulate Trump on his pronouncement that drug dealers should be executed.

 

                                             Richard E. H. Phelps II

                                             Mingo

Political Pronouncements

 POLITICAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

 

As I have previously mentioned, I follow Ernst, Grassley, Feenstra, and Reynolds on twitter.  Very edifying I might add.  They give you the key to running for office and more particularly, staying in office.  These people must have professional tweeters on their staffs along with a person who follows them around with a cell phone camera.  Almost all tweets are accompanied by a photo of the senator, representative, or governor in the company of some Iowan, both smiling with a caption reading how fortunate the politician is to be visiting with this person or persons when we all know that it is the civilian that bloats and gloats about the visit and the photo and who will then vote for the politician from then to forever.

 

Governor Branstad perfected this method of retaining an elective office.  Governor Branstad had one objective in life and that was to be governor of Iowa and he succeeded wonderfully.  My understanding is that he had his photo taken with someone every workday of the week and sometimes on weekends—never resting.  He and the trooper driving him saw a whole lot of Iowa.  Once you have your picture taken with the elected official, and especially if it makes the paper or TV, you are theirs forever.

 

This brings us to the print part of the tweets.  The world is going to hell and its Biden’s fault.  Every single thing that can possibly go wrong with your life is a result of something the democrats did somewhere to something.   Without exception.  They can say it’s the democrats’ fault because they as a group have voted against everything that could possibly make a difference.  Well yes, there are a couple of exceptions, but nothing that would contradict the pronouncements that everything bad is the result of something the democrats did and the horror of it all.  Of course, there is always immigration, but that is a different matter.

 

Now this piece is not for the purpose of praising democrats and repudiating republicans, it is simply the observations of someone who follows our current crop of legislators and governor on twitter.  It may very well be that if they were all democrats they would be blaming all the world’s ills on the republicans.  Either way, you can’t believe anything that is tweeted other than the fact that they actually had their picture taken with an Iowan who is now proudly flaunting that fact.  You wonder if they all went to class and were instructed on how to convince the public they are actually doing something and have the public’s  interest in mind when serving in whatever capacity they are serving in, while accomplishing nothing but complaining about something someone else did or didn’t do.

 

You, as a voter and Iowan, must at some point decide whether these people know anything at all or are just saying stuff to get you all worked up and to continue voting for them.  If you, as an informed voter ought to be, are knowledgeable at all about what we call current events, you know  these people say anything that comes into their head whether it has any basis in fact or not.  And, if you don’t know otherwise, you buy it.  This is politics in Iowa; makes you proud doesn’t it.

 

                           Richard E H Phelps II

                           Mingo

Less Clothes Please

  LESS CLOTHES PLEASE

A necessary comment  seems appropriate regarding our current TV consumption, especially involving athletic contests.  I, being a male who enjoys watching athletic contests, particularly appreciate the latest effort in bringing female commentators on board.    The appearance of women on athletic talks shows has indeed become more frequent and this is due, of course, to the view that women should have equal time.  After all, I'm a feminist and fully approve of this effort.  And, more importantly, this effort is being accomplished in a correct manner. 

Have you noticed, you must have, or else you are completely oblivious, how people are dressed at these events and presented.  This applies not only to athletic events but so-called news events and all special events, but athletic contests specially.  All men are fully clothed and all women are partially nude.  A fully dressed female is simply not marketable; bare shoulders and arms, low cut dresses, and short skirts (if currently in style) are mandatory.  Males, on the other hand, should be fully attired with suit, nice shirt, and tie.  

Now I, for one, being a man and all, think this is perfectly fine and dandy.  The women I see on the TV screen should wear the fewest clothes as decently possible.  This is called marketing.  Sporting events are primarily intended for male audiences and  professionally dressed men look professional and are clearly competent to give us their opinion on what we just watched. Women can be professional and competent as well, but only if they clearly reveal some cleavage.  That's competence.  They know their audience and they give it what is expected - - no cleavage, no opinion.

It's all ratings folks.  I understand this and approve.  The market demands semi-nude female announcers and fully clothed male announcers and this is the way it should be.  We live in a capitalist society and market share is the sole criteria of success.  So just quit complaining and go with it.  These continuous protestations of sexism and other isms that we hear are just sour grapes after all.

Richard E H Phelps II