SNAP

SNAP

As a followup on our household debt discussion, it would be worthwhile to take a look at SNAP officially known as "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program".  The article to which I refer indicates that 42,000,000 Americans use SNAP to provide food for themselves and their families.  

The same article refers to the United States as the richest of nations.  There seems to be a disconnect here somewhere.  If household debt is 18,400,000,000,000 and 42,000,000 Americans are relying on government assistance for food, how does it translate into being rich?  Just saying!

We are told we are rich; we are the greatest, wealthiest, most prosperous nation ever seen.  We all believe this because the statements confirming this are continuous and have been given us our entire lives.  At the same time we spend almost a trillion dollars in the defense budget - - you know, building another aircraft carrier that can get blown out of the water by any sort of missile at any time.  We have to be rich, don't we, if we are the greatest and have the most aircraft carriers?  But what about food?

Now don't call me unduly pessimistic or of simply trying to ruin your day, but once in a while we ought to look around and make an effort to comprehend our world and what it means for us and our descendents.  It just might be that things are not what others say they are and the people in charge are not who we think they are. 

Maybe we should pay attention once in a while!  Maybe we should ask a question once in a while!  I do pose one possibility, and it does often seem more than a possibility, that our elected representatives really don't represent the people who elect them, they represent the people who give them money.  This seems to be the case here in Iowa:  our national representatives appear to represent Trump, not us,  and our state representatives appear to represent Reynolds, not us.  When our elected representatives come back home for the purpose of justifying what they have done rather than asking us what they can do to make our lives a little better, it should be clear who they are actually representing - - not us.

I'm not saying that this matter of representation is the reason that we have $18,400,000,000,000 in household debt and 42,000,000 receiving food stamps, but it is certainly something that should be considered and be given some thought.  It wouldn't seem to me that we, as a nation, are particularly rich.  There are certainly many people here that are rich and there are many who have an income that qualifies them in the minds of many as being rich, but that doesn't necessarily mean we are a rich nation.  The facts seem to be contrary.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

 

 

$18,400,000,000,000

 $18,400,000,000,000

This is the number that an article this past week used to describe the household debt in the United States.  Presuming that it could be off a dollar or two, it remains a rather significant number.  Our household debt has reached trillions, not millions, not billions.  So what you say is the significance of that?

This is a significant number; it has meaning.  We are a society that operates on debt.  Corporate America a long time ago learned that it can sell only so much stuff if people spend only what they have; hence it has created a method by which people can buy stuff without the money to buy it, with only the promise to pay over time. 

The method corporate America developed was to create companies that provide the money to buy stuff you can't afford to buy outright.  This too is a profit making enterprise - - the profit is called interest which in turn becomes investment income and this generation of money without production has created a whole new field of study - - "finance capitalism".  

In order to buy something without the money to do so, one eventually must pay additional money for the same product which often, as one can quickly realize, may double the amount of the cost of the product purchased.  A whole lot of money is going to companies that don't produce anything.  They are siphoning off billions of dollars from our national income by creating a way to allow us to have stuff we can't afford and probably don't need and to go into debt, and for many of us, for the remainder of our lives.

The organizations that provide the money to buy stuff do not produce anything of value.  They don't make shovels or stoves, they simply are formed for the purpose of providing a way for you to buy more stuff.  This has become necessary for the reason that millions of people are involved in making the stuff that you can not afford to buy, and without debt most of the stuff made would not be sold and the people who make the stuff would not have a job or an income and would be unable to buy the stuff they make or other stuff made by other people.  Money would, in effect, disappear.  

The question becomes:  Can we as a country or a society survive without debt?  Is it required that you and I buy stuff we can't afford for our country to remain intact and what we think of as being prosperous?  Is buying stuff we can't afford a necessary element of living in a modern society, ours in particular?  Are we really prosperous if we owe a lot of money and have to spend our days making money to pay for all the stuff that we have the use of?

The answer, of course, is yes; it is necessary.  We are judged by what we have; this is a requirement and one that is made clear to us continually.  We are not only judged by what we own, but what we have the use of.  We have the use of the car we don't own.  The car can be repo'ed.  We don't own the car until we don't owe money for it and by that time it will have little value.  We don't own the house we live in: it can be taken from us by the company that loaned us the money to buy it.  Not everyone is in debt, very true!  But if we owe, in total, $18,400,000,000,000, someone surely is.

The debt we have personally and collectively is significant; it defines us; it determines our lives; it makes us who we are. The church, the government, the organizations we belong to do not control our lives, our debt does. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Good for Business

 GOOD FOR BUSINESS

As you know,  me being a criminal defense lawyer, I'm always looking for ways to make my particular profession more profitable.  This being the major reason why I'm always rooting for our state legislature to make more crimes and more severe punishments every time they are in session.  Usually, they are quite active in doing so and I am thankful for that.

What we now have is a great example of another method of increasing our business, hence the earning power of the criminal defense bar.  President Trump is leading the way and must be given credit for this new effort - - prosecuting our political rivals or people who displease us.  Comey and Bolton are great examples.  This effort must be studied and emulated by our own governor, Reynolds, and our own attorney general, Brenna Bird.

When you think about it, it will be a whole new era in America - - prosecuting political opponents and people who don't please.  We have the framework now of a police state that will be able to assist in this effort.  We've always had secret police, but now they are even more secret - - wearing masks and such.  I can only applaud the efforts that are being made to increase the business of people in my particular profession, the criminal defense bar.

I know that I am in the minority here in that most of my colleagues think this effort to prosecute political rivals and people who don't please as unamerican and fascist.  But what the Hey!  It's good for business:  I'm all for it.  We've got thousands of crimes on the books both federal, state, county, city, etc.  We should be using them to good purpose by putting more people in jail and otherwise making their lives miserable.  They will need my services.   I can see my business mushrooming.  Congress and our state legislatures have been making more crimes every session for several centuries now.  It's time we begin using them.

You ask, how is this possible?  It's easy.  Trump has shown the way.  You call up your attorney general or local county attorney and say "Hey Ms. Attorney General, so-and-so  said nasty things about me and I want him prosecuted.  Find some crime you can charge him with and do so promptly."  As I said, with all the crimes that are on the books, it should be easy to find something to charge him with.  

In Iowa, you don't even need a grand jury to indict, you merely need to file a trial information and you can do this without having to convince a group of citizens to be accomplices in your efforts to use the criminal law for your own benefit.  It is even easier than in the federal system where you need a grand jury, so let's get with it shall we.  Inflation is with us, it costs more money than ever to survive in a decent manner, and the more money we have, the better it is.  I know this is a little self-serving, but oh well.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Climate Radicalism

CLIMATE RADICALISM

Well, we have a whole new radicalism to concern ourselves with.  This coming from our own attorney general, Brenna Bird; and it must be so if she says so.  After all, she is attorney general and therefore a person who knows of what she speaks.  

The particular offender in this instance is the European Union, a group of 27 countries.  The offense of which our attorney general speaks is a recent enactment concerning not only ESG, environmental, social, and governance practices, but also diversity, equity, and inclusion.  This enactment is known, apparently, as the "Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive" and includes "sweeping" requirements.  No wonder Brenda is beside herself.

This radical green agenda most assuredly will adversely affect just about everything we hold near and dear here in Iowa.  And if directly affecting American companies, farmers, and such with "unconstitutional and immoral requirements", it is not tolerable.    It clearly is not tolerable according to the attorney generals of Florida, West Virginia, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.

You would think with all this firepower, the European Union would simply take note and rectify the situation immediately.  Surely with such distinguished disgruntlement, the effort to address adverse human rights and environmental impacts would be acknowledged to be the hocus pocus that it is and discarded quickly.  What a ludicrous notion that the European Union can enact its own rules  which affect us Americans requiring American companies to comply if doing business in the European Union.

We don't have these silly DEI and ESG rules here to make things complicated for foreign companies and a simple immigration raid now and then shouldn't count.  So we need to applaud our attorney general in turning her attention to European matters where things are really out of control.

   There is nothing very pressing going on in Iowa that needs her attention anyway.  She's got plenty of people working for her to take care of anything that pops up needing immediate attention.  Maybe it would be a good idea if all these attorney generals have a pow wow and decide on some decisive action to counteract this environmental radicalism that seems to be current on the other side of the Atlantic.  Maybe they could send a delegation to Brussels for a week of talks and while there have a decent meal or two and do a little sightseeing - - you know, get a little culture.

I'm sure that the presence of such dignitaries in Brussels would get their attention and they could effectively explain their objections to any diversity, equity, inclusion, climate change, environmental concerns or other radical notions which we in the States are in the process of doing away with altogether.  And maybe, just maybe, convince these radicals the errors of their ways and come to their senses.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo                                                                          

 

MIddlemarch

                                                                 MIDDLEMARCH

George Eliot

Books for Bigots

I do love my subtitle "Books for Bigots".  It announces clearly what needs to be understood, that books, reading in general, is anathema to Bigots of all stripes and flavors.  I submit the following thesis:  If you do not read books, you are a default Bigot.  It can't be helped.

Middlemarch, as has been pronounced, now for several hundred years, is a marvelous book.  I have been living with my copy now for an entire summer.  In explanation, my reading habits are somewhat odd.  I have books on the main floor of my house which I am reading.  The issue I have on the first floor of my house is that I am reading a book but pick up another and get sidetracked.  Consequently, I am reading several books at once.  

My second floor reading is bedtime reading and the books that I have on the second floor are separate from the books I have on the first floor.  In addition,  I do my magazine reading on the second floor in a horizontal position.  My bedtime reading continues until I find myself falling asleep with a book in my hands.  This is a nightly occurrence and has become habitual.  

Middlemarch was a second floor reading or, as I say, bedtime reading.  My copy is a Signet Classic version of 823 pages.  I often see where people get caught up in reading a book and read it through all at once or nearly so.  What I find interesting is that when you spend an entire summer, as I did with Middlemarch, the book, the characters, the scenes, the setting, etc. become embedded in your mind so much more than if you take a day to read something and then go on to something else.  Dorothea Brooke, Tertius Lydagte, Rosamond Vincy, Nicolas Bulstrode, Edward Casaubon, Camden Farebrother, and the many others become your acquaintances over the summer which is not possible with a quick read.

I really have no critique of Middlemarch in that it has been the subject of literary criticism and academic discussions for a century and a half and I can add nothing to those discussions that would warrant any additional comments.  It is a book worth reading.  I know there are thousands of books in existence worth reading and a person can't read them all - - can't even read all the ones he or she wants to read.

What I will say is that George Eliot is a person I would have liked to know.  She clearly is a person of incites and observations of the human species and had the audacity to put these incites and observations into print.  During a person's daily activities, one does not often come across another person that merits further acquaintance.  Most of us are humdrum and without any particular aptitude that would warrant further acquaintance.  

This judgment of my fellow creatures may seem callous and unnecessary but the fact remains that most of the people we meet or interact with on a daily basis do not merit further acquaintance.  There is just nothing that warrants much time spent.  

George Eliot, otherwise known as Mary Ann Evans, was one of those people who have existed that made a difference in those who knew her and have read her.  It is unfortunate that the vast majority of people, English speaking people, Americans, Bigots of all stripes, will never know her or of her or care.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Middlesex II

  MIDDLESEX II

Jeffrey Eugenides

Books for Bigots

My reading is geared to Bigots.  Bigots consist of a vast multitude of people in this country who are illiterate in all respects except the ability to decipher script dealing with their very limited area of expertise.  Most of the folks of whom I refer spend the vast majority of their time mowing the yard or watching a football game.  These two activities are sure evidence of illiteracy.

Now Middlesex, the biography of a hermaphrodite (fictional presumably) is a book that should be required reading for any would-be Bigot.  The book vividly chronicles the life of a hermaphrodite, is not untasteful nor gruesome.  It does what appears to be a really good depiction of growing up as a girl and ending up as a man and how the person so growing up and the family and acquaintances of Calliope but now Cal adjust to the change.

Bigots have great difficulty believing, or wanting to believe, that other people may be different from them, have different needs and beliefs, and believe them to be Bigots which, indeed, they are.  We currently live in an environment when Bigotry is in the ascendance.  It is difficult to believe, but more difficult to understand, that with the level of knowledge available and its easy accumulation, that someone being different from the usual or the norm is to be castigated and not allowed to define him or her self.

The general run of Bigots appear to be religious, at least in the main.  Bigotry runs deep and periodically resurfaces as it is doing now and with it the espousal of religious principles as the rationale and justification for it.  I espouse one principle and one only when it comes to what a person may or may not be - - they are entitled to choose for themselves.  I have no business telling a person that they should declare themselves one thing or another to suit my preferences.

As I began, Middlesex is well written and gives the reader an understanding that most do not have before reading the book which, to me, is the purpose of any book worth reading.  Obviously there is some sexual activity, but it is not graphic nor included for any pornographic purpose, but really a necessary topic, and probably the most important one, for a person who is a hermaphrodite.

I can't think of a better book for a current version of a bigot to read and ponder.  It could have a wonderful effect on the understanding of a person who currently has none.  And, I apologize to anyone who is a hermaphrodite for talking about them, but hopefully I will be excused.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Those Bureaucrats!

 THOSE BUREAUCRATS!

Senator Ernst is once again belaboring bureaucrats; once again suggesting that bureaucrats are bad and we need to understand this once and for all and be rid of as many as possible.   Thank you Senator Ernst for pointing out the failures of our bureaucracy.  It has been some time since you last opined on the failures of bureaucrats and the necessity of keeping an eye on them, if not firing them en masse.

Some clarification is in order however.  I think the first thing we should do is to determine what a bureaucrat is - - come up with some sort of definition so we know what we are talking about with some specificity.    I expect that most of you, the reader, who reads this, works in an office.  This office is more than likely part of a business, corporate most likely, with many employees with jobs sitting at a desk and performing tasks that have been assigned.

If the situation in the above paragraph applies to you, you are a bureaucrat.  Now you may not be called a bureaucrat, but nevertheless you have the same role in the organization you work for as a person has in a government office - - doing the jobs that have been assigned, usually sitting at a desk in front of a computer or by a phone dealing with the public.  The difference is that you work at a private office and the bureaucrat, as Senator Ernst calls them, works in a government office.

Where you work determines what you are called and by whom.  It is most certain that Senator Ernst has a staff.  These people are bureaucrats.  The person writing her opinion pieces is a bureaucrat.  If you work in a private office performing the necessary functions for the company or organization you work for, you are a bureaucrat regardless of what you otherwise might call yourself.  If you work for Blue Shield or Wells Fargo in a large building with a large number of employees, you are a bureaucrat as surely as you are working for the Department of Labor  in Washington or the Transportation Department of the State of Iowa.  There is no difference: one works for a private company and one works for a government doing jobs that need to be done in order for the company or the agency in question to function as it is intended to function - - in one case to make money and in the other to serve the public.  

Senator Ernest digs through tons of files apparently to discover malfeasance in our bureaucracy.  She or her own personal bureaucrats, her staff, find some just as there is embezzlement from the local school, the dentist's office, or the  Moose Lodge.  It happens.  What is disturbing about Senator Ernest, her opinion piece's purpose appears to be in support of the idea that bureaucrats are bad, all bureaucrats for that matter; that they exist superficially and without much function and we should be rid of as many as possible as quickly as possible.

The principle behind Senator Ernst's opinion piece printed in the Newton Daily News, once again, must be the belief that the American public, her public, the people who voted for her or may vote for her in the future, are stupid.  It is difficult to find any other basis for her opinion piece to be presented to the public in the manner in which it is presented.   At the very least it is annoying and at worst, destructive.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo