The Search for Intelligent Life

 THE SEARCH FOR INTELLIGENT LIFE

The search for intelligent life in the universe continues with new telescopes, computerized data, and now presumably AI.  A bacteria or a virus will do - any biological form will assure us that there is indeed life and intelligence out there somewhere.   The presumption being that where there is life, there is intelligence.

Our current situation here on earth is illustrative however:  life and intelligence are not necessarily concurrent.  One does not presuppose the other.  The number of life forms found on earth has yet to be determined with any certainty; it's a really big number.  I would suspect that if life, as we know it, can be located on another planet, it will not take the form of a solitary creature.  This should be considered a certainty if we take earth as an example.  Every biological unit on this planet will be eaten by other biological units, hence you need more than one for life to exist.  These biological units may have a form of  intelligence; some more than others.  But if life demands intelligence, all life forms presumably have some, at least enough to keep themselves alive.

It follows that if there is life as we understand it on other planets there must be more than one solitary version.  A little reason goes a long way in understanding the difference between what is intelligible and what is unintelligible.  But back to earth.  We, meaning us earthlings, homo sapiens in particular, pride ourselves on our intelligence.  We have concluded that we are an intelligent life form.

I would suggest that this conclusion does not necessarily comport with the facts.  Examples are endless and illustrative; we are all aware of human activities that defy reason and logic, and indeed, can not be attributed to intelligent life. Our legislative bodies are a prime example of human hubris in this regard.  These bodies of biological units (legislatures) presume themselves to be not only adequate to the tasks given them, but of the superior understanding necessary to regulate the behavior of all other biological units within their grasp - - meaning you and me.

If one were to actually look at what our legislative bodies do and how what they do affects you and me, one might quickly gain the idea that the search for intelligent life might be of more benefit if we were to look a little less celestially.  It would be significant if we found life, intelligent or not, on some other planet in the universe, but it seems to me that it would be more significant if we could find some here on earth.  On first glance there doesn't appear to be much intelligence locally and especially in our legislative bodies.  

One must not get the notion that I am casting unfounded and  disparaging remarks about our elected representatives which in turn reflect on the people who elect them.  But if one were to look at the situation without preconceived notions, one must necessarily come to the conclusion that our idea of intelligent life here on earth needs an adjustment.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Mason and Dixon

 MASON AND DIXON

Thomas Pynchon

Books for Bigots

Mason and Dixon, the first Pynchon book I've read, has been a significant find.  As I approach the end of the book with some sort of report for Bigots in mind, what comes to me is that I'm reading Tolstoy or Dostoevsky - a Russian novel.  What Pynchon has done here is give you a view into 1760s America, along with I might add Cape Town and St. Helena with a bit of England thrown in.   A late chapter of a conversation between Mason and Dr. Johnson and Boswell on their way to the Hebrides made me smile.

This book took an immense amount of work to write.  One must credit Pynthon with a massive effort and imagination.  As I have always maintained, I am not a literary critic but simply a guy who reads books.  What I have found is that if after reading a book, one thinks about it and writes something about it, it sets in your mind better.  This would apply to any Bigot as well where after reading some screed, make a few notes of some Bigotry notable for its eccentricity.

This book has nothing against Bigots.  In fact, there was no thought of them.  The portrayal of slavery was simply that, with the exception Dixon taking a whip from a slave driver who was whipping slaves driving them down the street; but even then it was simply a personal distaste of torture and maltreatment.

What I take Mason and Dixon to be is a history book; a so-much better history book than simply a description of things that have been - - one can get the feel of America as a colony at that time, the people that inhabited it; knowledge that nothing is quite what it seems; that there are other inhabitants out there in the forest that need accounted for.   And for all those who wish diversity to disappear, unfortunately a realization that you can run into just about anyone and anything from anywhere on the frontier.  There are always those looking for something different and they are of all kinds.

 

The other acknowledgement that one must make is the immense effort it took to make America as we know it.  It would seem to mirror the effort it took to write the book.  I am glad I read it and now will be required to read Pynchon's other books which will take considerable time and effort.  It should be worth it.  And, I highly recommend the book to any Bigot who might inadvertently come across a copy in his or her travels and carrying's on.  It really doesn't harm a person to know a little of how he or she got to be the way they are and the historical factors that go into one's personality.  It might actually cause one to have a thought process or two which often can be beneficial. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

No Mismatches Allowed

 NO MISMATCHES ALLOWED

As Iowans we should be proud of our legislative efforts.  We are a State that is leading the nation in  extinguishing any diversity and our latest effort needs commendation.  Senate File 579 signed by Governor Reynolds says that an Iowa city can't give its citizens more civil rights that Iowa gives them.  A necessary development, don't you think?  We simply don't want some people to have more rights than other people have; or, as the Governor would say, we do not want our civil rights "mismatched".

And we certainly don't want a person living in Des Moines to have more civil rights than a person living in Waukee - -  for instance.  It just wouldn't be right.  Or what about Newton?  It certainly wouldn't be appropriate for the citizens of Newton to have more civil rights than a person living in Colfax or Sully - - for example.

What Senate File 579 says explicitly is that a municipality cannot decide for themselves what is unfair or discriminatory.  Only the State of Iowa can do that.  So let's say that Newton, for instance, determines that a restaurant can not  deny service to a person wearing a cap.  Since the Iowa Civil Rights code says nothing about caps, Newton would not be able to protect your right to wear a cap while eating your lunch.  It may be discriminatory, but it is not forbidden.

Apparently, what has caused all this ruckus is the idea that some people would like to identify as something other than simply male or female.  We have taken particular offense to this idea.  What Iowa has decided to do is to declare that you are either a male or are female and that's the end of it.  How or why this came about is not clear, but it seems to be the case.

Self-identity is no longer allowed.   I am not to suggest, at least publicly, that even though I may have the body of a male, I have the hormones and mental traits of a girl.  No more of that-  - not allowed, verboten.  It could destroy civil society which is already teetering dangerously.

Now I realize I said the same thing about samesex marriage and things didn't fall apart, but this has got to be different surely.  This goes way beyond samesex marriage; when a gay person says they are gay they are not saying they are female when they are clearly male.  This transgender stuff is not acceptable and will result in total social catastrophe - - our whole belief system will collapse and anarchy will result.  We simply can't let some big bulky guy walk up to us and say, "Hey, I may look like a man, but I'm really a woman."

Not happening folks! Enough is enough and we should applaud our legislature in attending to things that are really important; those things which will make our lives better.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

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