Tuff

 TUFF

Paul Beatty

Books for Bigots

A book definitely not for Bigots - for White ones specifically.  As you know, I recognize Bigots of all hues.  Winston Forshay, otherwise known as Tuff is not the ordinary human being either in New York City or anywhere else and such a character outside of a fictional account would not be easy to find.  

Clearly Mr. Beatty is an educated man who wants to give us a flavor of Black New York which he accomplishes in this novel although from mid-story on it would seem that Mr. Forshay is not the character that would best embody it.  Having written a book myself, I find it troubling to suggest that another book is somewhat deficient or otherwise unsatisfactory knowing just how much effort goes into writing one.

Tuff has all the deficiencies possible in a human being while at the same time has innate qualities that would allow him to rise above his neighborhood surroundings.  The other characters are likeable enough but caught in a city, a locale, that does not allow them to advance intellectually or otherwise beyond having street cred and  surviving in a rather hostile environment to which they contribute.  Tuff's wife, Yolanda, is trying for an education by working on a college degree:  she appears to be the exception.  It is also clear that these other characters that make up Tuff's immediate circle are rather intelligent and better informed than one would suppose but stuck never-the-less.  Winston's father, a former activist, is now a speaker, a writer, and seemingly a genuinely interesting fellow that the reader would like  to  have learned more about.

But as for Bigots attempting to read this book, one can envision nothing but failed attempts.  Accepting the fact that my own experience of Bigotry is limited to White, Semi-Rural, Iowa in close proximity to Des Moines which currently is hosting Bigotry-in-Full as a convocation of the current legislature.  Few of  those participating in our legislative process would even consider, as a possibility, reading a book by a Black author about Black people living in a mostly Black place, if they were to read a book at all which in itself is difficult to imagine.

The White population of our State still hasn't recovered from the Geroge Floyd uprising where "supporting the Blue" became the war cry of our local citizenry.  Now I can write stuff like this because I am White.  A Black person writing it, would not have much of an audience here in the land of corn and pigs and insurance companies.  I can call a White person a Bigot because I am a white person.

I'm sure that I will take heat for attempting to say anything at all about this book. This would be due to my complete ignorance of Black city life.  But isn't this what literature is about?  I don't know much about Russia either, but I read  BROTHERS KARAMOZ with the result that I now know more about Russian than I did before I read it.

Tuff's most used word, manifesting itself as the largest portion of his vocabulary, is "motherfucker".  I would have expected that word to be used wherever English is in current use and it is certainly commendable that it is in current use in the various boroughs of the City of New York.  But Tuff's vocabulary doesn't fit his aspirations.  There are hints that Tuff actually is pretty bright and would like to have an education and I would have felt a lot better about him if he had gained some during the course of the novel.  Maybe being on the City Council will be beneficial even though one is left with the idea that it won't work out well for our wanna' be hero.  He certainly doesn't think so.  The best view of Tuff: he has the qualities of a hero, but he may have too far to go to get there.

As indicated above TUFF is not a book for Bigots.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

No Shots For You

NO SHOTS FOR YOU

Our Iowa legislators are in the process of passing legislation which is certainly unneeded.  They are in the process of deciding that kids should no longer be required to have vaccinations to attend school; this being based presumably upon religious grounds.  This even includes polio with which I am intimately familiar as my brother had second grade at home in bed.

There have been previous efforts to exclude the requirement of vaccinations from the child endangerment statute found at 726.6 of the Iowa Code.  The current exemption is  that if you "can show that such treatment would conflict with the tenets and practices of a recognized religious denomination of which the person is an adherent or member".  The proposed legislation appears to add to or increase the ability of parents to deny vaccinating their children.  

Now being a criminal defense attorney, I vehemently  disagree with any efforts to reduce crime - - the more crime the better.  This piece of legislation is contrary to the intent of the current criminal law of Iowa specifically the said child endangerment crime which is enforced vigorously.  We simply can't be excluding certain activities from the child endangerment statute whenever someone comes up with the idea that one form of endangerment is ok but another is not.

For instance, we get people charged with child endangerment all the time for driving with kids in the car while intoxicated.  The idea, of course, is that this particular course of conduct is more risky to the health and safety of the children involved than it would be with a sober driver.  Having driven my entire adult life and then some, I have long come to the conclusion that children are in danger simply being in a moving vehicle with the usual adult operator, intoxicated or not.  We have apparently determined that the risk of injury is increased with intoxication, by what amount or on what basis is undetermined, but a crime nevertheless.

The same should apply to vaccinations.  The legislature shouldn't be able to reduce my job opportunities by making it legal to put your kid at risk for measles or polio or other communicable disease.  I'm certainly not a statistician but it would seem rather obvious your kid's risk for serious medical issues is significantly increased when he or she is not vaccinated.  Wait till you see a resurgence of polio.

As a criminal defense attorney, consistency is an issue and we don't seem to have much here.  One should not be prosecuted for criminal conduct when your neighbor does not get prosecuted for similar conduct.  So, risking serious medical issues by driving while drunk (driving period if you ask me) can put you in jail, but allowing your kid to get measles, or polio, or such other diseases that can also kill them does seem somewhat inconsistent.  Why should I be limited to defending a drunk driver for child endangerment and not a parent of an unvaccinated kid?

As I said at the beginning here, the criminal defense bar should be concerned with this new development.  After all, our legislature has been making new crimes every year and now they want to be contrary.  We have had good feelings about state government these past few years as a result of all these new crimes and increased punishments being enacted - and now this!  Before we enact such legislation as now proposed, let's give it a little thought.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

 

A Trifling Matter

 A TRIFLING MATTER

Well, it appears that the Supreme Court and the President don't see eye-to-eye, or in other words, disagree.  This is on tariffs of all things.  Who would have thought that there could be such a disagreement on such a thing.  After all, most of us don't even know what a tariff is.  

The current level of constitutional knowledge in this country is pretty much limited to the idea that we all have a right to have a gun - - the constitution says so.  If you were to ask around, this would be the extent of what many of our fellow citizens would consider constitutionally allowed - - the right to bear arms.

Just as a matter of clarification, this "right" is contained in the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which applies to all fifty states by the way.  However, once we get past this particular  excerpt of knowledge, our understanding becomes somewhat clouded.  Yes, we have a President, and yes we have a Congress, and yes we have a Supreme Court; but what they can do and what they can't do is a mystery to most of us.  If we learned anything in high school's civics class, it didn't stay with us much longer than the final exam.

The matter of tariffs was just discussed by the Supreme Court in Learning Resources, Inc. et al. v. Trump decided on 20 February 2026.  One suggestion I would make is to read the decision.  I have heard the decision mentioned numerous times since the 20th by those who agree and by those who don't.  It is my understanding that not one of the people who were discussing it with me had read the Court's decision or even knew that it was available to read.  Folks, this is why we have Google!  In addition, one might actually peruse the Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 7, a somewhat pertinent document when it comes to taxes.  These two items will explain why the President does not have the authority to create a tariff.  A tariff is a tax.

Some of us apparently think that the President can do whatever he wants. Our current President must think this.  After all he's the President and we elected him.  I know this is somewhat unusual, that I would suggest actually determining what he can and can not do  rather than simply ingesting what appears while scrolling on your iPhone; and hence, obtaining an  opinion  with no basis in fact. 

Folks, the President can not levy a tariff, only Congress can.  A tariff is a tax; only Congress can tax you.  A President can't simply decide one day that you have to pay an additional tax, but he did anyway.  Your Senators and Representatives know this, or they should, as should you.

Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo

Ah! It's the Books Again

 AH! IT'S THE BOOKS AGAIN

Books are on their mind.  It usually is this time of year when the legislature is nearing midterm finalizing various legislative proposals.  I will give credit when credit is due.  We once again are making renewed efforts to keep books from minors.  

Long ago our legislature understood the serious nature of minors knowing anything.  This is allegedly a  matter of sexual knowledge.  Unfortunately sex is necessary if you want to consider the continuation of the species.  And what's more, every life form on the planet engages in it - - or they wouldn't be here.

One can conclude from this that sex is the foundation of life as we know it.  However, our legislature is determined that children, their children and my children presumably, need not know about it; that there is such a thing; that such a thing is necessary for life; that they will one day engage in it in one form or another.  The idea is that if we talk about sex rather than what is really the issue, which are books, the public will support their efforts.

The main culprit in the dissemination of information regarding sex is the library - - any and all libraries i. e., books.   Libraries are the problem; libraries provide knowledge and knowledge is not required or desired.  We must limit the knowledge that our children possess - - knowledge just isn't good for them and without books, it would be so much better in keeping it from them.  Children  should not be reading books!  Our legislature does not approve.  

Since every child in America, which includes Iowa, has access to the internet, the idea that a library poses a special danger to sexual knowledge is ludicrous.  Consequently, what one must gather from the renewed efforts of the Iowa legislature is their distaste for books not their obsession with sex.  They must think about it all the time; probably nightmares and sleepless afternoons wondering what literature their children might come across at the library.

But again, it really isn't sex that is the issue. I can't imagine our legislators don't like sex since presumably they engage in it;  so it must be the books they don't care for. Clearly, they don't like books and don't approve of anyone who would read one. Sex is just the excuse to get rid of the books.  One can only assume that the public who elect these people are in agreement - - books are bad and the less access to them children have the better.  Banning books is as old as the first book; not only banning but burning and sometimes the author along with it. Knowing stuff is not good for you and clearly this should be addressed through legislative action.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Ayatollah Comes to Iowa

 THE AYATOLLAH COMES TO IOWA

And it is about time I would say; a theocracy is long over due.  It's time religion replaces parties - - parties have always been insufficient to demand obedience to certain beliefs.  And it's about time to jettison the nonsense in the constitution relegating religion to a subordinate position in the scheme of things.  

Iran has been in the news and gives us a good understanding on the benefits of a theocracy:  when your citizens protest and run amok in the streets, you don't coddle them like we do here, you shoot them.  Religions in charge have always done such.  A few history lessons would be enough for a correct understanding of how theocratic governments work.  If you don't kill them en masse, you do things such as burning them at the stake, or disemboweling them, or breaking them on the wheel - - those activities certainly get the public's  attention.

We're getting there slowly though.  We have got legislation now in the works to get rid of such things as discussing or identifying oneself as LGBTQ.  No one has the right to be anything other than male or female and access to books saying otherwise should be  deemed unacceptable and banned.  It has always amused me how fearful some people are that their children might learn something different.  The idea that a child of religious parents gets an idea that maybe the parents are missing something is not to be tolerated.  Public libraries will be next and should be.  After all, someone's kid might accidentally wander into a public library and pick up some reading material that does not comply with a parent's religious beliefs somehow  involving  self-identity.

Legislation is also being pushed forward eliminating the mandate for school vaccination. Clearly there are many people who continue to believe that your child's vaccination should be a parental decision.  You know, it's about freedom and such.  A person should be free to risk not only their own children but all other children they come in contact with.  It's a free country and nobody should be able to tell me to do the intelligent thing and get  vaccinated.  One caveat though, we need to exempt the failure to vaccinate from the child endangerment criminal statutes.  We can't have parents being prosecuted if their kids die of the flu or become disfigured by polio. You have to realize that there is a difference between driving while intoxicated with your kids in the car and not allowing your kids to be vaccinated for protection from diseases that will kill or maim them.  The risk is about the same, but that is irrelevant.  

Freedom, after all, is simply personal choice.  If I can't choose between vaccines and no vaccines my personal freedom has been reduced and that is not acceptable; this is America afterall.  And, when it comes to books, freedom to read what I want, when I want, about what I want doesn't apply to personal choice.  I can insist that  my kid doesn't read anything I don't want him or her to and I can also insist that your kid can't either.  Books are the same as vaccines in one respect:  there are way too many of them and they are not necessary.

So let's applaud the Iowa legislature and give them our support.  Once passed, such legislation is sure to be signed by the governor and it will ignite further efforts to return to theocracy - - long over due.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Put'tem in Prison!

 PUT'TEM IN PRISON!

I'm so excited, as a criminal defense attorney, that our Iowa legislature is once again thinking: 'incarceration'.  As they well know, incarcerating people solves all kinds of things.  The down side, and there is always a down side, is that with the current payment schedule for us criminal defense attorneys here in Iowa, few are interested in this new business model.  The local repairman gets paid far more than a court appointed attorney so the more criminals we produce the better.  We'll make up for it in quantity what we lose in quality.

I see from the Des Moines Register that the new idea, you would think it had never been thought of before, is to make a 20 year mandatory sentence for those who persist in not doing what they are told or otherwise persistently not behaving themselves.  From what one would gather listening to our legislators, the two most pressing issues for us Iowans are criminal behavior and property taxes.  Apparently, there is too much of both.

And, as I said at the top, being a criminal defense attorney, I can't argue with either notion.  What more can you ask than an increase in business opportunity and less expense while doing it. I can only applaud our legislature in their continued effort to make life better for those in my profession.  We might even have to build a new prison.  I'm sure numerous communities will vie for its location in or near their local area - - a great economic opportunity for their unemployed.

We have learned, I presume correctly without further analysis, that leading the world in incarceration, us, the U.S., is of tremendous benefit. Not only does it take so many unproductive people from the streets and ghettos of our cities, it alleviates many nuisances and improvident behavior from our smaller towns and communities throughout Iowa.  After all, who wants continued pilfering from places such as Walmart or HyVee or the wandering homeless when a solution is immediately available - - prison!

Being the sociologists they are, our legislators read up on all of our county attorney and law enforcement annual proposals on how to make us safer and immediately get to work.  Safety is the concern - - as it should be.  One needs to be able to do whatever one wants whenever one wants without hindrance from those who don't have the means to do whatever they want whenever they want.  Pretty simple really.

So, I must applaud any new effort to make more criminals and for keeping them locked up longer.  Who needs such people wandering around making life less idyllic than it should be.  Not necessary.  It's especially a win - win for those in my profession - - more business at less cost; and as for the general public, they can relax more comfortably in their beds at night knowing that there are fewer people stealing  tools from the garage while they slumber or the Amazon delivery off the porch that shows up whenever.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

We'll Wait and See

 WE'LL WAIT AND SEE

The words of our long time senator, Charles Grassley:  "I'll wait to see what the FBI investigation shows".  This is, if one were not aware, the statement that our senator made upon inquiry of his opinion, or view, or thoughts of, the shooting of the woman in Minneapolis.  The only response possible to such a statement is "Watch the video!"

We must remember that Senator Grassley is part of the congressional body that funded ICE.  Iowa's entire congressional body voted for the vast funding of ICE and its hiring of innumerable men who were then given guns and called police:   All for the purpose of grabbing people from their jobs, their schools, their cars, putting them in cells with hundreds, if not thousands, of others, and sending them away to parts unknown.

I recently read an analogy that immediately caught my attention.  It was looking back at the Holocaust which killed six million jews, unnumbered Roma, and others,  which benefited no one.  It killed, tortured and otherwise made life miserable for millions without any benefit to those remaining.  Our current efforts have the same lack of effect.  Rounding up and deporting thousands of people here in the United States, most of whom work, buy things, pay into social security, and otherwise add to the economic viability of this country benefits no one.

Of course, being deported is better than being shot in the face in front of your three children.  For our elected representatives to not act or respond in outrage is outrageous.  Here we have people who are purportedly elected to represent us, presumably to make our lives better if possible, who spend their time and energy either verbally or silently supporting this national effort to make life miserable for thousands without any thought whatsoever of the possible benefit to either the country or to the people in it.  It really is shameful.  Are we afraid to disagree; are we afraid to say stop!

We are made aware of this administration using the office of the attorney general to investigate and/or charge those who disagree with it and are capable of expressing that disagreement.  Is this what happened in the 30's - - as long as it doesn't affect us, we don't care enough to do anything about it.  But then, it does affect us and those who are left don't care about us!  Are our elected representatives afraid they will be next?

We must care what happens to us and others if we are to maintain a civilized society where we can all prosper and live without fear.  Let us hope that the current attitudes and actions of our government and of the people currently in charge fade quickly and we return to some form of normalcy which does not terrorize us.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo