Is It an Opinion?

 IS IT AN OPINION?

The articles that I have written over the last year are called "opinion".  They do contain opinion, my opinion in the various forms it may present itself.  I have heard from several that they do not share my opinion, with, presumably, the inference that they do not approve of me.

I am merely suggesting that  on issues of the day, things that may or may not affect you directly, actions of our governments, our way of doing things, whether our lives are  satisfactory, one would do well to form one's own opinion.  What I find normally is that most of us don't have opinions, we simply adopt other, ready-made opinions that we hear on TV, on the radio, on Facebook or other social media.  I do make an effort to have my own opinion and since it is my opinion it  may be different from the current opinion on just about any subject.  Simply saying you agree with another person's opinion or don't agree, is not the same as actually having an opinion.

If you were to ask the person with whom you are speaking, how did you come to that opinion, the conversation pretty quickly slides into absurdities clearly indicating the person holding the opinion has  no knowledge of  facts supporting such an opinion.

Yes, I do have bias - - clearly; but we all do.  Bias certainly affects the opinions I hold and bias affects the people you, as individuals, listen to to obtain the opinions that you adopt.  Nothing unusual about any of this.  In my daily conversations, there are few opinions that appear to be original in any sense.  One can not enter a conversation about any topic currently being discussed on the air or over the internet that can in any way be considered originating with the person expressing an opinion about it.  If you consider yourself a Republican, you will watch programs consistent with the views currently in vogue with the Republicans.  If you consider yourself a Democrat, you will watch programs consistent with the views currently in vogue with the Democrats.

When I send a piece to the paper, I do not do it with the purpose of convincing you to have the same opinion as I do; I am merely suggesting that you have an opinion of your own and not simply grab some opinion off the TV screen that is consistent with your already possessed opinions, for your already possessed opinions have the same origin - - the TV screen.  

Having an opinion of your own does require some thought which is a major factor in not having one - - why give it thought when you can quickly tune in to a talk show where opinions are flying by so fast all you have to do is reach out and grab one.  Most of these opinions are glued to outrage and easy to grab onto. 

A second requisite for having an opinion is knowing something about the subject for which opinions are being proffered..  Most of us don't know enough facts to have an opinion on most subjects being discussed and we are not going to spend the time to find any.  But I certainly have a right to have an opinion, and by golly, I'm going to have one and I'm going to get really worked up over it whether I know anything about it or not.

When someone asks you for your opinion on a current topic, have you ever responded by saying "I don't have an opinion because I don't know enough about it to have an opinion?  I personally don't say that nearly as often as I ought. I really don’t know enough about many things to think I should have an opinion about them and in the course of a day I'm as guilty of it as anyone.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Paradise

 PARADISE

Toni Morrison

Books for Bigots

I've really got my work cut out for me on this one in The Books for Bigot series.  As I have said numerous times, but bears repeating, a first effort must be made to convince potential bigoted readers to pick up a book even with the unarticulated feeling, that a book in hand is actually necessarily a first step toward actually opening it to determine the number of pages one would have to commit to reading, and oh my gosh - the time involved.

For those who are not familiar with books, nor the reading of them, it is often thought that if one is to open a book and start reading it, the book must be read through to the end whether one likes the book or not.  To the bigot, all books have this entry problem, the supposition that once you begin a book, you have to finish it.  Not so.

Often a book is picked up, purchased, or what not with a particular intent to learn something specific about a particular subject.  This is not the case with fiction which I write about in its relation to the world of bigotry.  A novel's purpose has always been and its effect has always been, to give a view of other people and their lives, or, more broadly, society in general:  novels allow you to realize that there are other people on the planet not like you and who have no intention of being like you; and alternatively, there are people like you  who have issues to resolve like you, the daily issues you may need to resolve in yourself and reading about them may actually give you a sense of comfort or ideas on how to resolve some of these that present themselves to you..  

Now PARADISE, written by a Nobel Prize winner for literature, Toni Morrison, a black American, is a book about a group of black people, after the failure of Reconstruction, not being welcome in exiting communities as they travel west, create their own town in the middle of nowhere Oklahoma - - all black people with the exception of the convent already present in the middle of nowhere.  In addition it is about the ladies of the convent, pretty much self-supporting, and either runaways or rejects - - only the remnants of a convent really- definitely a different group of people from the new town makers.

The first pages of the book relate the action of the townsfolk (men) driving to the convent and killing all (women) that lived there.  The very last chapters finish the killing and the aftermath.  What occurs in between, and takes up most of the book, is how the townsfolk, the subjects of slavery, jim crow, segregation, and other forms of hatred and subjection came to act the same as the white society they had fled several generations previously.

As I said in  the beginning, this is a tough book for a bigot since the subject of the book is bigotry; it's about them and it also clearly accepts the fact that bigotry is not limited to white people - - there was clearly bigotry amongst the people of the community based on how dark you were. This should be comforting to white folk - - knowing, "Hey we aren't the only bigots".

So once we gain an understanding that bigotry knows no boundaries, or I should say creates them.  What chance does a bigot have in finishing the book or even advancing far enough to get the point.  Not good, I would say.  But hey, give it a chance.  You, as a bigot, can realize that bigotry escapes all boundaries, which realization can either comfort you in the knowledge that there are many of you - - all different kinds of you or, demoralize you with the understanding that you, yourself, may be the subject of bigotry and artificially created boundaries.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Once Again

 ONCE AGAIN

Once again one can't ignore "this immigration thing" which the Republicans rode to the White House:  it is most bizarre.  If one were to read the Wall Street Journal only casually, one would quickly understand that immigration is and always has been America's key to success.  We don't have enough engineers to run our tech industry and we don't have enough labor to turn pigs into pork.

The Wall Street Journal is not some leftwing rag spewing discontent.  One interesting problem that keeps occurring in its pages is the issue of dwindling numbers in China and Japan - - for instance.  It is clear that a country can not sustain itself economically with a dwindling number of citizens, not only in production but in consuming.  What many do not realize, or refuse to, is that a modern economy can not sustain itself with a diminishing population.  

This basic attribute of modern capitalism will eventually kill us all  as the planet runs out of the means to sustain it, but in the meantime, in order to prosper, a society has to increase consumption not decrease it.  If you don't have the people to buy the stuff you make, you won't make it and the people who make it will not have employment.

People without anything want to come to the United States; they do not flock to China or Japan who need the employable very much.  We have an "immigration problem" for the very simple reason that we don't have an "immigration problem", but we have found a way to sell "the immigration problem" to the American public.  This is possible only because the American public has no knowledge of what is happening beyond their own ken and don't want to know apparently.  We are all immigrants and if you still want to consider America as the greatest country in the world you have to admit that immigrants did it and are still doing it.  None of our proposed efforts to throw millions of people out of this country makes any sense and it will become apparent rather quickly if current promises are fulfilled.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

A Certainty

 A CERTAINTY

Do you ever wonder, "What's the plan?  Do we have a plan?  Is a plan even necessary?  What if we  don't have a plan?  Does it even matter?"  The first response to these questions is "What are you talking about?"  "Who needs a plan and for what?"

Interesting questions for which no thought has been given.  I'm what many would call elderly.  In my grade school we had a plan.  At home we had a "homemade" bomb shelter in the basement stocked with various foodstuffs - - it was a plan.  Our government actually believed there was a possibility we could have a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.  And what is somewhat remarkable, in retrospect, they had a plan.  Whether this plan would have been effective now seems doubtful.  But they had a plan.

We have no plan.  Back then there were two countries with nuclear weapons - - manageable.  Today it would probably be impossible to know how many countries have nuclear weapons.  The only country, to my knowledge who gave up their nuclear weapons was Ukraine and look where that got them.

The other factor which seems to be an axiom of modern life is that if we have a technology, we will use it; and by that I mean the human population of this planet. It's progress.   It is inevitable that hydrogen bombs will be used on earth - - it is a certainty.   Best not to think about it.  I've got too many other things to worry about; no sense in losing sleep over the possibility of being fried by a nuke or quickly  eaten by radiation spreading over the continent,

It is merely a matter of time, though, that some  scout troop like Al Qaeda gets their hands on a nuclear weapon and will use it.  We have no plan.  We may not see it, but our children will and they also will not have a plan; they too will have other things to worry about, other problems to solve, careers to pursue; no time for a plan; it just doesn't fit.  

We simply don't want to think about it which in a way is understandable; but you would think that our government would give it some thought.  Maybe they have and simply aren't telling us.  That would be good, but for some reason I doubt this has happened or somewhere somehow we would have heard about it.  The only plan seems to be retaliation - - multiplying the amount of radiation swirling around the planet on the jet stream.  We would not only be liquidating the enemy, but radiating the rest of the planet including us.

So, I guess I'll just join the throng; don't give it a thought.  We have more important things to consider anyway such as immigrants and the price of gas and hamburger, interest rates, and the cost of insurance.  Too much happening to worry about Armageddon.  

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Under the Rug

 UNDER THE RUG

The Newton Daily News recently had an opinion piece about rugs and sweeping things under them.  This particular piece was concerned about the number of homeless people who are currently under the rug and how many more would be swept there.  The author of that piece, Farrah Hassen, J. D., believes the situation is dire and needs addressed.

Having a bunch of homeless people living in tents and other temporary shelters littering the sidewalks and underpasses is certainly a concern.  After all, one doesn't want the litter nor the other effects of homelessness such as panhandling and unwanted conversation with derelicts.   So what is the solution?  

You can always throw them in jail, but then you have to feed them and give them a bed to sleep in and guess who has to stand the cost of this? Us!  We've been doing the same with those we deem sex offenders for a number of years now.  But there are less sex offenders than there are homeless people (presumably), so we have been able to accommodate our sex offenders in jail and prison when they decide to camp in places deemed unacceptable - - such as within city limits.

But homelessness seems to be significantly increasing.  Instead of a tent or two, we may now have dozens of homeless to deal with when doing such routine things as grocery shopping.  Who wants a bunch of hungry people standing around watching you load your groceries into the back of your SUV?  Not me!

So in search of a remedy, there is always jail - - a tried and true American solution.  It can't be helped folks.  Rather than providing housing or at least, giving them a place where they can pitch their tents or set up what other temporary structures they can come up with, we just need to chase them out of town altogether and be rid of them.  What Dr. Hassen proposes, that our governments should take responsibility for these people, is totally farfetched and unacceptable.  The idea that our government should concern itself with anyone other than those with enough money not to need government assistance is absurd. 

The U. S. Supreme Court couldn't think of anything better than making criminals out of them and if they can't think of anything better than that, why should we?

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Prosecution of Falstaff

 THE PROSECUTION OF FALSTAFF

The Case of Young

Supreme Court of Iowa

We now have prosecutions and convictions of criminal offenses determined by whether it would have been something which Falstaff might have been guilty of or Hotspur.  Now for those of you who are unfamiliar with either, they are creatures of Shakespeare who now has attained the imminence of a legal authority in the annals of Iowa criminal jurisprudence.

Our case law, the literature of the courts, has now added Shakespeare as an authority to which we must pay homage.  I am not familiar with Blackstone's Commentaries so am unable to derive the historical verity of Shakespeare's status as a source of the common law of England, but if Justice Mansfield says it is so, it must be.

In the Case of Young, first name Artell, the federal authorities had obtained the signature of Young when being released from federal prison, that he would agree to having his house searched if there was "reasonable suspicion" that he might have illegal substances on or about his property.  The idea of these probation agreements meeting the current standards of contractual arrangements - - not a factor.

So, federal agents searched Mr. Young's residence without a warrant and found piddling amounts (obviously personal use) of crack, cocaine, and marijuana.  Apparently the Feds were too busy to deal with Mr. Young, so they called up state law enforcement and said "Hey, we've got a guy you can prosecute and throw back in prison, but we haven't got time to do it so it would be wonderful if you would do it".  And, of course, our state law enforcement said "sure, we're always available to help you guys out".

The issue that our Supreme Court wrestled with in this case, was whether the U. S. Constitution should apply to the search or the Iowa Constitution should apply.  Do you need a warrant to search the home of a person on probation?  The Feds didn't have a warrant.  There was much discussion of "a special-needs exception" and other morsels of ratiocination, but the Court said that because federal agents did it and Mr. Young was on federal probation, federal law applies and the Feds don't have to follow Iowa law when searching the residence of an Iowa citizen in the State of Iowa.  Good to know, right?

So there you have it, Shakespeare is now  legal authority in the guise of Falstaff (Hotspur is another issue altogether)  and the Feds can search your home without a warrant if you're on federal probation.  As I have often said, and not proven wrong, our State will find a reason to prove you a criminal, even if they have to hunt for it in the literature of the 16th and 17th centuries.  It's called 'stare decisis'.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Too Many or Too Few

  TOO MANY OR TOO FEW

We need to get rid of all these illegal immigrants; apparently we have all the people we need and we don't want any more.  But wait, we are not going to have any more abortions:  we need more people.  We obviously don't have enough people and we need more.  Which is it?

There is something amiss here.  Either we don't have enough or we have too many.  Oh! I get it.  We don't have enough of the right kind - - that's what we don't have enough of.  Why didn't I think about that before making such a big deal about treating immigrants poorly and putting them on trains to deserts in northern Mexico so that the Mexicans can deal with them.  

In the meantime the people that are here already, you know those whose ancestors come from Germany, England, Holland, Scotland and such need to have more babies.  Maybe we would still have a hospital prepared to deliver babies here in Newton if we would just get rid of this abortion thing.  If you get pregnant, suck it up and quit complaining.  You are doing it so we don't have to let in a bunch of poor starving immigrants who just suck up our tax dollars.

I always wondered why the big todo about abortion.  We want more white people and fewer non-white people.  You don't have to mention race at all; it's a non-racial thing - - it's a religious thing.  You are committing murder if you have an abortion; you are not committing murder, at least not where we have to take responsibility for it, by simply deporting people who have no place to go.  If they don't make it, oh well, we aren't responsible. 

But this murder thing bears discussion.  What's the big deal about terminating a fetus?  We are going to need an answer to this.  All of a sudden the concern for  murder is at the top of the charts?  After wiping out millions of indigenous Americans (pre-Columbus people), killing millions of slaves with brutality and substandard treatment, what's the big deal?  So now we are humane?  Well, if so, it's a good thing right?  Human life is sacred and after all it should be.  I think we can all agree on that.  None of us want to get killed because someone else doesn't approve of us.

But we do need to decide:  Do we want more people or less?  This appears to be the question that needs an answer first.  Then once we have an answer to that question, if in the positive, we need to determine what kind of people these people should be.  This last issue appears to be a somewhat trickier one and needs further discussion.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo