It's the Name Thing

 IT'S THE NAME THING

As our legislature's primary duty is to make life more difficult for as many people as possible, I have another suggestion that has some merit for inclusion in their legislative priorities for the remainder of the current session.  We need a law that prohibits hyphenated names.  

Hyphenated names are far worse than transgender pronouns.  After all hyphenated pronouns are one syllable and SHORT.  On the other hand hyphenated names cause all sorts of problems for those of us trying to figure out how to address someone in the correct manner without offense.  

Oftentimes these hyphenated names are lengthy and cumbersome to use, and, I might add, unnecessary.  Simply because these "modern" women want to carry on their name just like their husbands do; it is not a sufficient reason to give their kid a hyphenated name.  These are more than likely the same women who believe they have a right to an abortion and that thought alone should give you the incentive to call your legislator and demand action.

The legislature could even criminalize it.  They enjoy making new criminals every year, this would give them a golden opportunity to make some more.  Not only should they prohibit any legal recognition in the future of such hyphenated names, they could prohibit current driver's licenses or identification cards to have them - - limiting them to one name now.  People would be flocking to the courthouse to get their name changed.  What fun would that be: serve them right.

Now some of you may object that it is none of the legislature's business to demand one last name only, but just look at what they are doing now, simply to find something to do while still in session, banning transgender.  Now if you can ban transgender, which is a biological fact, you certainly can ban hyphenated names which is not biological, but merely a modern fad generated by women who think they should be equal to men in respect to their children's names and refuse to change their names when they get married.

And as always, as a criminal defense attorney, I am in favor of new crimes and criminals.  Our business is booming thanks to our legislature who continue to think that since they are legislators they have to pass legislation whether needed or not simply to have something to do and what is even better,  it is usually to prohibit some behavior of which they do not approve.  Hyphenated names should be at the top of the list.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Another Scary Word

  ANOTHER SCARY WORD

As noted previously, the latest attempts to mobilize the public against scary words has put such words into our consciousness as an obvious effort for us to consider and reject them as deleterious.  A second such word after "diversity"  is "equity".  There is currently a nationwide effort for the public to reject "equity" along with "diversity" and other terms indicating things deemed harmful to our  well being.

As any word, "equity" has a general meaning which I am quite sure those objecting to its use have no knowledge of.  In addition, having some legal training, I am familiar with what have long been known as courts of equity.  Yes, indeed, there are courts of equity even though no longer called such.  The first actual courts of equity were established in the 16th century.

Courts of equity do not grant money damages, they deal with how citizens deal with each other specifically in such things as good faith, fairness, ethics, and just conduct.   I suspect this is a surprise to many - - that there are courts who concern themselves with just conduct and what's more have existed since the 16th century or thereabouts.  

So once again, to those who are involved in this apparent national movement to rid the world of equity, one might at least have some insight as to what the word means and why there are courts of equity in the first place.  If we are to live together and to maintain some sort of civility toward one another, which over the centuries many have realized to be difficult, we need to have some institution available to see that it occurs i. e., courts of equity. 

It doesn't take long, if one were to look around one's neighborhood, city or other place, or to read a newspaper or watch the local news that there is some serious inequity that could use a little attention.  But what I see in this nation is an effort to characterize "equity" as something pernicious and not to be condoned. 

Now the equity that forms the common complaint currently  is the "equity" of the effort to make up for centuries of inequitable behavior to a very large number of people and give them the chance they never have had.  We  call this effort "equity".  From what I see, the current feeling of those who are not of the groups that have been treated inequitably for centuries, are saying enough is enough already, we've had enough equity.  I, for one though, think it is a decent idea to give people a chance they never have had and it really does seem equitable.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Scary Words

 SCARY WORDS

Nothing like scary words to cause one to fear and tremble.  I know that is true with me.  At the top of the list is that word "diversity" and how germane a discussion of it is at this time.   It truly is a frightening word and with a connotation that brings nothing but conflict and unease.  Just look at the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians who have spent centuries trying to liquidate one another or the Hutus and the Tutsis where the Hutus came close to annihilating the Tutsis.

Now we, in the United States, although escaping mass slaughter, at least up to now, are ramping up an anti-diversity campaign.  Long over do, I might add.  As we can see from history, diversity causes massive slaughter and if we can nip it in the bud, it is possible that we can avoid killing people to resolve it.  Instead we can begin, as our legislature is attempting to do, to persuade people not to be different from the norm of middle America for which we are so proud.  They are legislating sameness.

Diversity, to one not giving it much thought, is no big deal, right?  So what if somebody thinks, acts, or speaks differently from me?  So what?  Well, it's a major issue because it says to me that I and my beliefs mean nothing to the person who has different beliefs and beliefs are everything right?  My beliefs give me meaning, they cause me to act in certain ways, they are important in creating community and when someone tells me they don't believe what I believe and they think I'm foolish for believing or acting the way I do, I just can't tolerate it.  Why do you think that the catholics and the protestants spent the better part of a century slaughtering each other? 

Now America, which is populated by all sorts of people from all sorts of places with all sorts of beliefs and behaviors has managed to escape these major slaughters.  There are just too many different kinds of people here in the United States to get the number of people together to quelch it.  For instance, it is difficult to get a protestant to get rid of Catholics when the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists will not go along with it knowing full well they will be next.

The same applies to race and language.  Somehow we have the idea that this country is for white people primarily and we have made efforts to make it so.  We got rid of the people that were here before Europeans came, we forget that people speaking Spanish were in New Mexico before the Pilgrims were in Massachusetts, that this country has approximately 42 million people who speak Spanish most of which have ancestors not in Europe but native America, that 350 languages are actually spoken here, and that the black people who were brought here were not thought particularly human and treated as such.

So one will have to conclude that the effort to get rid of "diversity" in one form or another has a long and enduring history here in the United States, but has always failed.  Our current Iowa legislature is renewing the effort of exterminating whatever new diversity they can identify.  One has to applaud the historical continuity here even though all previous efforts have failed and no doubt will fail again.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

A Simplication

 A SIMPLIFICATION

My day-to-day interactions with my fellow citizens, normally at the Jasper County Courthouse, has led me to believe that the English language has shrunk magnificently.  Life is so much simpler with a smaller vocabulary, don't you think?  But this can be overdone.

English is probably one of the most remarkable languages on the planet, with the ability to express the most subtle expressions and consequently much too complex for many of our fellow citizens.  What has occurred is a drastic simplification in our daily usage.  This is especially true of adjectives.  

Now for you who may have missed that day in class when adjectives were illustrated, an adjective is a word that in some way modifies a noun.  What I experience in conversation with defendants and other participants in the courthouse drama, the number of adjectives has been reduced to one.  Nothing more simple.  That adjective is f - - - ing.

In some instances, within a rather long and tedious conversation when attempting to elicit facts from a defendant, family member, or witness the adjective is used with every noun articulated and often used as the noun which it is meant to modify as in f - - king f - - k.   This phrase is rather common actually.

Most of us are in favor of simplification, but this seems to be a little bare. Sometimes we do need more to get the nuances of the event for which the criminal charges have been brought, but, alas, that would take several additional adjectives. 

There was a time when the use of this adjective would get you disowned by your parental units.  Not so now.  It is so prevalent that any novelty is long gone.  This is not to say that one should approve of this adjective or expressions that contain either f - - king of f - - k, and there are always those memories of how a teacher, preacher, parent, or relative would react if this particular adjective would somehow flow from your vocal cords. Not good.  But those days are gone.

The legislature is in session again and as normal, thinking about sex and books and such.  Maybe they could bring to the floor some suggestions regarding adjectives.  They spend much of their time fixated on what we, the public, are thinking and doing and they should realize, being adults with a modicum of education, that the language people use affects not only their understanding, but their behavior.

In conclusion, you will have to make up your own mind on how the English language should be used and the range of adjectives that should be available to provide meaning in your everyday conversations.  It would seem to me that limiting oneself to one adjective causes unnecessary ambiguity but apparently commonly thought  sufficient.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Way of All Flesh

 THE WAY OF ALL FLESH

Samuel Butler

Books for Bigots

Some books are just too enjoyable to recommend to a Bigot.  The idea that Bigots would be reading THE WAY OF ALL FLESH and trying to absorb an entire world different from their own, is simply not a feasible thought.  I haven't enjoyed a book as much as this in a long time.  Once again the English have excelled in writing novels that entertain, instruct, and vividly portray a world with which we are not familiar but certainly ought to be (and possibly emulate).

The book was published posthumously in 1903.   Butler must have realized anything that good would cause him immediate problems he really didn't need while alive.  Books are funny that way; they can cause the author all sorts of problems, especially good books.  It can be the authorities, it can be the clan of bigots always patrolling, it can be religious folk.  It has always been that what one thinks is what  gets one in trouble, especially if published.

A person can be just as obnoxious as possible, can be mean and  nasty, but you know - - live and let live; but write a book or publish thoughts different from the current ones, you are in trouble.  This is Bigotry as we know it - - the war against thought - - the inability to accept the fact that someone else may not agree with you or have a different opinion which would require you to question your own opinion.   And in the case of THE WAY OF ALL FLESH, it being an accurate representation of a particular society at a particular time there is something in it for all Bigots to despise, especially in that it is an accurate depiction rather than some comic book version.

The narrator of this story, the teller of the tale, is quite thoughtful in a very accommodating fashion in both first person commentary and example - an author obviously well-acquainted with most human foibles and who is not opposed to illustrating them in great detail.  The hero of our story from birth and a miserable childhood through Cambridge and ordination and then into a series of  unfortunate experiences, including the gaol,  with a proclivity of making really poor  decisions, and finally to a time of wealth unearned, is a rather interesting fellow as you watch him get bounced around by fate and the characters he meets and interacts with.  Of course, the inability to make decent decisions rather than to commit simple impulsive acts gave Mr. Butler the opportunity to relate the adventures and descriptions of life in London that he did and is a rather good technique of enlivening a story .

Once you get past the misery of growing up in a rectory with really awful parents, it becomes a book with plenty of adventure and description of life in England in all its flavors  Again, though, I refuse to recommend this book to Bigots for the simple reason they don't deserve to read it.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

A Cultivation

 A CULTIVATION

A rather lengthy article appeared in the Des Moines Register on the efforts the Des Moines Public Schools are making in improving k-12 education. They have apparently had various committees working on this project for a lengthy period of time.  Being a criminal defense attorney who has a clear understanding of the level of education of much of our population from daily contact at the courthouse, I can only applaud any effort in increasing our general level of learning.

The article broke down the five areas, or I should say five cultivations, to be addressed in this five year improvement plan:

1.  cultivating equity and excellence

2.  cultivating well-being

3.  cultivating transformative talent

4.  cultivating organizational effectiveness

5.  cultivating community and collaboration

There must have been and continues to be a vast effort within the Des Moines Public Schools in search of educational improvement which, of course, must be applauded.  I do have one suggestion however:  teach them a syllogism.  I can't recall if I have ever, and I mean ever, come across a defendant who had any knowledge of or had ever heard the term "syllogism".

As Aristotle said around 350 BC or so:  "All men are mortal.  Socrates is a man.  Therefore, Socrates is mortal."  One could bring that forward a couple of thousand years and add to it:  "People who commit crimes are criminals.  I committed a crime.  Therefore I am a criminal."  See how easy that is and one has to admit that knowing what a syllogism is and how to construct one might not be such a bad thing for our children to know.  Or how about logical fallacies such as "false dilemma" where the claim is there are only two options in a given situation when there may be many such as "America: Love it or leave it" or "Are you a Republican or a Democrat".

I'm sorry, but cultivating equity and excellence or well-being doesn't cut it.  First, what do you mean by cultivating?  Second, once you agree on what it is, how does it apply?  Third, what do you consider equity, excellence, or well-being?  Fourth, once you have come to some agreement on these terms how do you measure them?  Fifth, are the students and their families presumed to have the same idea of what these things are?  Not a word about syllogisms or false dilemmas.

I say, let's forget all this cultivating but rather teach these kids a few things they can use in their adult lives, things which actually may be of a benefit to them as they try to navigate the world they live in, and therefore,  enhance their well-being. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

It Just Isn't Right

 IT JUST ISN'T RIGHT

The destruction in LA from the fires is vast and will affect thousands of people adversely.  The most affected will be those who depended upon the wealthy to employ them tending their residences when they themselves are out and about in the world doing whatever they do when out and about in the world.

A house or what is left of it, the rubble and debris, is toxic.  The rubble and debris, the soil it sits on, the air surrounding it, the water flowing into the Pacific, are all toxic.  It is a poisonous environment not fit for human habitation.  And, of those who have lost their homes, the question is surely "How did this happen to me?"

We, in the Christian world, have adopted the ancient Hebrew vision that the world was made for us.  We, the human species, are the reason there is a world in the first place.   We screwed up the works by eating an apple, but nevertheless the main premise did not change - - the world and all that is in it, is here for our benefit.

So, when a major catastrophe occurs, such as the fires in LA, it is contrary to the way things ought to be.  It just isn't right.  Now if you are not involved in the catastrophe, but looking at it from a distance, unharmed yourself, one possible explanation, the usual one, is that those losing their homes are being punished.  This line of thought has a magnificent and lengthy career in the history of mankind.  Unfortunately, it has no basis in fact nor did it ever.

The pile of rubble left after the fire is the result of the person or persons who constructed the edifice and accumulated the fixtures and artifacts for their own personal satisfaction.  If the rubble is present, the people who owned the objects which became the rubble, are responsible.  This is not punishment; you don't get punished for wanting and building a really great residence in a fabulous neighborhood, with interesting neighbors and amenities, but you are responsible for the debris that is left behind.  It is your debris; you are the reason for the toxic environment that now exists rather than the idyllic environment it once was.

In addition, it is not the fault of the city or county governments; it is not the fault of the state or federal governments.  If you had not built or purchased a house where you did, you may very well still have a house.  It is no one's obligation to protect you from your own decisions.  I feel bad for you, but I don't feel responsible for your loss.  

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo