Collective Ignorance

COLLECTIVE IGNORANCE

Upon any reflection whatsoever, it is clear that the collective ignorance of the Iowa legislature is only surpassed by its unconcern.  They pass laws willy-nilly, the advisability of any particular statute sufficient if it should randomly come to mind of a legislator or some influential donor calls in with a suggestion.

Considering I am a criminal defense attorney, I pay particular attention to the new laws affecting my clients.  The last legislative session there  passed three statutes that deserve mention.  They are the doubling the mandatory sentence for people convicted of a third felony, the restriction of pretrial release, and the banning of warrant resolution clinics.  The last first - -  warrant resolution clinics.  Polk County established a method whereby people with outstanding warrants can appear at a location outside of the courthouse, to address their warrants which could be for such things as a traffic offense or some other minor infraction.  Our legislature forbids this practice insisting those with a warrant be arrested. 

Secondly, the ability of a judge to determine what is appropriate bond, if any, for a newly charged defendant has been significantly curtailed with the apparent presumption that judges can not adequately determine bond. The person who actually has knowledge of the person being arrested and the facts of the circumstances is deemed not sufficient to make such a decision.

Third, for those convicted of a third felony, the sentence will be 20 years with 7 of that mandatory.  Now it is 15 years and 3 years mandatory.  

Those within the criminal system realize that these new statutes will require two new prisons and a significant increase in local jail facilities. Money for incarceration has become the American way.  We don't need proper health care or housing, but we do need more jails and prisons.  

The justification for these increases in incarceration as stated by our governor are several:  1.  standing with the victims, 2. continued criminal behavior demands accountability, and 3. there needs to be real consequences.

What occurs immediately to mind is that  these legislative enactments are grossly nasty with a  total unconcern for the people being charged with a crime.  If one were to reflect on the number of new felonies that our elected representatives enact each year along with the continued prosecution of a vast number of Iowa residents who use marjuana, meth, cocaine, fentanyl, etc., it is obvious that our legislative bodies are clueless or worse cruel.  They profess concern for the citizens of this state, but if you don't do what you are told to do or not do what you are told not to do you are not worthy of that concern - - prison for you.  

Having intimate knowledge of the use of illegal substances in Iowa, it is clear to me that if all who have two previous drug convictions and a little bit of meth on their person for use to maintain their concentration at work and then being pulled over for a traffic offense are prosecuted with a third felony, there will be no possible place to put them all.

A vast number of people who live and work in Iowa use illegal drugs every day.  This can not be disputed by anyone involved in the criminal justice system.  We need to acknowledge this and not by putting more people in jail and prison, but by realizing this is the way it is and accept it.  It is a fact and will continue to be regardless of what our legislature does.  Let's put fewer people in prison rather than more.  Putting people in prison is treating people very poorly and makes for really hard feelings rather than conscientious citizens.  

Richard E. H. Phelps II

Mingo

 

Our Best and Brightest

  OUR BEST AND BRIGHTEST

A recent post compared President Trump with the prime minister of Canada, Mark Carney, who has a bachelor's degree in economics from Harvard and  a Ph.D. from Oxford and the president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum  who has a Ph.D in energy engineering from the National Autonomous University of

Mexico.   Trump refuses to have his undergraduate, University of Pennsylvania records released.

I'm sorry, but I find this disturbing.  I find it disturbing we have a president clearly uneducated and even more clearly, knows nothing.  We have a president who simply decides one day we will kill people in boats at sea, on another day we will kidnap the president of Venezuela, and yet on another day we will bomb Iran.  You tell me:  what have we become and how are these decisions being made?

I really don't want to be a part of this, but I am, because I am an American and if I go to another country, I am an American, and we kill people on boats at sea and we kidnap presidents, and we bomb other countries.  We are saddened when we lose a dozen service men; but not contrite nor sorry nor apologetic when one of our bombs lands on a girls school in Iran or destroys whole blocks and factories killing unknown numbers of Iranians.

Folks, things are askew and we are to blame for allowing it to be such.  Am I unamerican that I don't support whatever it is that we have done, or are doing, or will do in the future?  I think not.  It seems we are spiraling out of control; it is happening right in front of us and we don't recognize it for what it is and we need to pay attention.

The first paragraph here was to emphasize our, meaning American, pathological fear of education and knowledge of the world and what is happening in it.  We simply can't afford to have ignorant boobs leading our country in this modern age when weaponry, AI, algorithms, quantum computing, instant communication, finance have reached levels of achievability that can destroy us and everything we value.  Contrary to current thought, education is important - knowing things is important not only for people who make the decisions but for all of us.

We. as a people, seem to have given up on this idea, of being educated, and it is on the advent of becoming permanent with AI.  Having an uneducated president, a president who doesn't know anything, and who clearly doesn't want to know anything is perfectly consistent with our prevailing attitude.  It fits with a public who doesn't pay attention nor have the ability to determine whether what is being done should be done.  And folks, it signifies an end that will not be pleasant.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison clearly understood that an ignorant public can not stand.  They said as much and they were correct.

Richard E. H. Phelps II

Mingo

Whose History?

 WHOSE HISTORY?

A major conflict these days is the question of whose history are we going with today.  History moves around a lot.  It consists of one set of historical facts in one group and another set of historical facts in other groups.  An interesting example of this is currently occurring in Wisconsin where Francesca Hong seems to be a front runner in the Democratic Party governor's race.

She has been heard to say that Thanksgiving is a colonizer's holiday and Valentine's Day is a day "capitalism tells you how to show love".  Now you will have to admit that Thanksgiving is a holiday enjoyed by most of us.  But I do say "most of us" purposefully.  I have met several Native Americans that really don't have the joy that most of us do when we sit down to our Turkey dinner.

And let us not forget July 4th.  You really can't expect a black person to celebrate July 4th, now can you?  These different perspectives are what are now being attacked as unamerican and not proper subjects of education.  Iowa's government has caught the current tide of one America and only one America meaning the proper historical notions of what and who we are.

As much as our current administrations would like us to forget these various perspectives and join in their insistence that white, european people are the only people who belong here, it is untenable whether we like it or not.  This country is operated to a large extent by immigrants and if you don't think so, you are fooling yourself - go through a check-out line in your local grocery store or try to have a conversation with one of the guys roofing your house.

Our white American ancestors brought the black people to America.  Our white American ancestors brought the Chinese here to build the railroads.  These people were brought to this country to do things white people wouldn't do for either of two reasons:  There were not enough of us to do the work required or we didn't want to do the dawn to dusk work necessary.  Us white people are the reason that there are black and Asian people here; and, by the way, very few Native Americans.

And let us not forget the Hispanics (those speaking Spanish).  If one were to actually study a little history, one would quickly realize that the hispanics were here first.  Santa Fe predates Plymouth but you certainly wouldn't know it would you.  It was established as the capital of Nuevo Mèxico in 1610.  The pilgrims landed in 1620.  Who are we to tell them they shouldn't be here.

So I suggest we get over ourselves.  We live in a world that doesn't always fit our view and we need to understand that.  We are seeing a resurgence of our worst selves and we need to realize it now and acknowledge it.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

It's a Positive Matter

 IT'S A POSITIVE MATTER

A recent piece in the Newton Daily News extolled the benefits of "positive thinking", or in current context, "positive control of thoughts" or "positive mindset", all of which appear to denote the same idea.  When I encounter this type of material, my thoughts automatically go back to the days of "self-esteem".  

If one recollects, it was extremely important for one to not only have "self-esteem", but to increase "self-esteem" in oneself and to develop it in others.  One could only describe the whole concept of "self-esteem" as a contagion infecting the whole of society with special effects on Departments of Human Services who closely monitored the homes of those with inadequate income or of those using illegal substances in which poor "self-esteem"  was clearly the cause.

The contagion moved on, as most contagions do.   The "power of positive thinking" also has a long history.  Many books have been published on the subject and again the whole idea advanced broadly.  One was absolutely required to be positive in one's thoughts, or to think positively, or to act positively, or some such thing.  The lack of "positive thinking" has many of the same aspects as the lack of "self-esteem" both of which can be the source of inadequate income and the use of illegal substances among many other deficiencies.

Both of these ideas have been around a really long time and never to my knowledge have actually been established as anything other than motivational spectacle. Both "self-esteem" and "positive thinking", having now been given economic value, apparently makes them necessary for a successful life here in the modern world. The article recently published extolling its positiveness lists the benefits as (1) helps overcome obstacles, (2) helps motivation, and (3) prevents giving up.

One could not describe the reason for a war dance before battle any better than for the increase of self-esteem and positive thinking when they help overcome obstacles, increase motivation, and prevent giving up. When an effort is about to be made to pillage a neighboring village and kidnap a few women if possible these attributes come in handy.  It helps to think not only highly of your own abilities but the lack of those same abilities in the denizens of the neighboring village about to be pillaged.

So in closing, I must confess both "positive thinking" and "self-esteem" are anything but new, having a really long history dating back to premodern times which shows the  current thinking on the subject is anything but revolutionary or novel and hasn't changed much.  

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Election Directive

 ELECTION DIRECTIVE

A little noted executive action, upheld by the Supreme Court by the way, was the firing of three of the four members of the U. S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent commission designed to assist state election officials with various issues that may come before them.  The fourth member, a republican, resigned.  The commission had two democrats and two republicans as would be the number insuring some form of nonpartisanship.

This is a good thing too!  We need to build up our ability to contest any election where a democrat prevails.  The last thing we want is a congress able to interfere with whatever our president wants to do, which is just about anything, if you know what I mean.

So let's face it.  After contesting elections in 2020 without success since there was no evidence to support the allegations, we need to ensure that we can successfully contest any democratic victory without evidence now, in 2026.  After all, you learn by experience.

We are already hearing that many elections will be rigged and the fact that they are all where democrats may win is simply coincidence.  We are in the process of establishing coincidence as an evidentiary principle.  There is absolutely no reason that one can not conclude that there is election interference if a democrat wins.  It simply stands to reason and the overwhelming social media opinion supports this.

And one does not need other evidence when one has coincidence.  This must be our guiding principle going forward.  What adds credence to such a conclusion is the fact that our president and other high officials say it is so.  I mean what more do you want than the president claiming election interference and democrats winning elections.  The facts speak for themselves.

This presidential claim of omniscience in his projections of the rigged elections of 2026 and hence the preparations underway to combat election fraud wherever it appears a democrat is winning are simply necessary. Getting rid of a nonpartisan election commission was not only a good idea but also a requirement.  Nonpartisanship is simply an impediment to proper election results.

The FBI and Department of Justice should be ready to instigate immediate investigations where democrats manage to get more ballots than the republican candidate and there should be serious discussion now of seizing ballot boxes where necessary.  Intimidation would have an impact as one more tool in fighting rigged elections and may conceivably reduce the actual number of elections needing a different count.  

So in closing, we must plan ahead which this administration is certainly doing.  As mentioned above, a democratic congress would be a serious impediment to whatever it is our president would like to do next and he and his appointed officials will be making any effort to see that it doesn't happen, which I am most certain a vast number of the public supports.  Besides, this democracy of ours is getting stale anyway and it may be time to ignore it altogether.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Again It's Crime

 AGAIN IT'S CRIME

Our legislature, true to form, has once again addressed one of  their two obsessions: crime.  The two stalwart areas of legislative action, crime and sex, give you an inkling of the minds of our legislators.  They apparently have a never ending fixation with these two areas of human endeavor.  From this  legislative impulse one must necessarily conclude that this is what they think about and which surely constitute unhealthy obsessions.

One of the accomplishments of this last legislative season was a revision of the bond schedule.  For those unfamiliar with the criminal process, a bond is the money that it will cost you to get out of jail pending the disposition of your criminal charges (there are usually more than one).

Bondsmen, or the individuals that will pay money to have you released from state custody are members of  one of the two oldest human professions - - bail bondsmen and prostitution.  One would think that we, as a species, would have come to terms with both of these two endeavors long before now, but alas it is not to be.

As I have mentioned previously, in medieval England, one can imagine that if you were charged with a crime, it would be possible, and maybe even probable, that you could simply disappear and hence cheat the hangman from his lawful employment.  Currently in modern America, it is rather difficult to disappear and it is becoming more difficult continuously. Hence, do we really need to take money from people  to get out of jail?

Coming up with the money to get yourself out of jail raises several questions that are simply ignored in maintaining this ancient tradition of requiring surety to be released.  First is the unquestionable fact that if you are arrested and being removed from home, family, and employment, you are being punished.  And this occurs only with an allegation.  

You say, this doesn't concern me: I'm not a criminal, I'm not going to commit a crime.  My response to that is there are hundreds, if not thousands,  of crimes.  Our legislatures makes new crimes every year.  I assure you that if you committed many of these crimes, you would not know you were committing a criminal act.  None of us know all of the crimes that exist and this is done on purpose.

Also, as I have said previously, you are presumed to know the law, i.e., what constitutes a crime.  This is how the government gets you.  You can't use ignorance as a defense.  So once you have been charged with a crime and taken to jail, you have to pay to get out whether you did the crime or not and if you can't pay, there you sit waiting for your case to be disposed of.  This results almost necessarily with lost employment, failure to make the rent or pay other bills that come due plus possible loss of pets and children.  And so what you normally do is plead guilty to something whether you did it or not just to get out of jail - a simple cost-benefit analysis.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Satanic Verses

 SATANIC VERSES

Salman Rushdie

Books for Bigots

How do we proceed in talking about SATANIC VERSES?  It has been established by Fatwa that bigots not only will not enjoy this novel, but should not read it.  I'm not sure of the consequences if one simply admits to reading it; I can only assume there might be some.  The Ayatollah Khomani declared a Fatwa against the book including the demand that Rushdie, his publisher and editors be killed.  Not a happy thought for those who might be inclined to read it.

It is not an easy book to read either: it takes you many places, you meet many characters, and it bounces from plot line to plot line which seems to be a normal manner of proceeding when this book was written in 1988 and then there is Saladin morphing into a goat and Gabreel an angel.  I'm not sure of the reason for this bouncing about but it does occur rather frequently in our modern novels.  Are our lives as disconnected from one aspect to another as they are portrayed to be?  I don't admit to that.

Considering this book had a world-wide impact, I have no excuse for not reading it sooner, but now I can admit publicly that I have read at least one, currently banned book.  Our religious brethren have always had difficulty with books.  I don't believe the Catholic Church's Index of Banned Books was officially dissolved until 1966 after four hundred years or so of its attempt to keep the faithful from reading books.  The early Christians not  only destroyed books but those who possessed them.  Hence the paucity of knowledge from antiquity.

One must realize that most active anti-book people are motivated by one religion or another.  The reason should be obvious; books contain ideas.  Ideas are not objects as such, but  have the ability to engage people in thought: always anathema.

Your religion gives you a set of beliefs.  The first premise of this set of beliefs is their truth.  To be a follower of a particular religious doctrine, one must believe it is inherently true and no other belief or doctrine is.  Belief has no factual basis hence it is incontrovertible - but at the same time easy to develop since no facts are involved. As a result,  religious beliefs can pop up just about anywhere.   The most significant danger to a belief is another belief; hence the war on books which has endured since writing first began.

Rushdie's book has the ability to make one consider one's beliefs simply by presenting various characters and activities and the effects religion has on them.  And then there are those who try to live and maintain in a land requiring belief; those who simply are trying to get by, who don't buy in, but simply want to go about their business without someone ordering them about.

Islam is not the subject of this book, it is simply described as it is and its effect on the lives of the people who adopt it (admittedly a little satire thrown in).  A portrayal of a belief through the people believing and its effect on others is sufficient to send a message to the reader that all is not what it purports to be.  Bigots understand this.  Do not read anything that even hints of difference in belief or of no belief or of anti-belief and for sure don't create characters who don't believe or say things not in keeping with the proclaimed faith which is the case in Satanic Verses.

Not much was actually said here about the book itself, but it did not need to be said when considering it as a Book for Bigots.  It is not a book for Bigots, even though they would not know what they are reading in any event.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo