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

The Twenty-Seventh City

 THE TWENTY-SEVENTH CITY

Jonathan Franzen

Books for Bigots

Having finished The Twenty-Seventh City by Mr. Franzen, it is time to consider its appeal to Bigots - - a constant quest for appropriate fiction.  Considering I am limiting my quest to fiction, American novels normally, generally with the view, appropriate I believe, that nonfiction would be far beyond the tolerance of most Bigots.  When a book might want to discuss religion, or dinosaurs, or the physics of the universe, or human sexuality, or gender identity, or any other topic one might be able to think of, it quickly occurs to one that such topics contain facts and scientific conclusions unacceptable to the minds closed to them, which normally, is the condition of the minds of most varieties of Bigots. I will admit there are varieties.

Now The Twenty-Seventh City revolves around Martin Probst, the builder of the St. Louis Arch and Jammu, an East Indian woman, the police chief of Bombay, who suddenly and mysteriously becomes the police chief of St. Louis.  The setting is St. Louis, always a plus for anyone familiar with the local.  Love eventually prevails, but with an inordinate amount of intrigue and what appears to be an attempt of the Indians to take over the administration and economics of both St. Louis City and St. Louis County.

Considering the book is a mixed bag of intrigue and rich people being stupid, it is probably a book that a Bigot could get through with considerable effort.  I will say that the book meanders from intrigue to the unsatisfactory lives of Probst and friends along with the effort to combine City and County of St. Louis. The various threads of plots get tied up in the last few pages - - not very satisfactorily it seems to me.  

It actually took me a while to get through the book.  In other words, I did not find it riveting and read it in small doses.  I do believe that most Bigots would find it a difficult go.  As with most current fiction, much of the action would not meet with the approval of the  Bigotry with which I am familiar.  Family and marriage appear to be particularly discordant with daughter moving in with some guy she just happens to meet while looking for someone else in a crowded St. Louis bar.  

Looking back on the characters in the book, no one is happy or content with their lives with the exception of the Indians who are too busy plotting for economic dominance to think about it. Other than once again giving us a sense of the modern American condition of aimless activity with the exception of becoming more rich than one already is, the book has little new or profound and I am afraid that even with this caveat, Bigots are simply better off not even considering the book a possibility.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Sednaya Prison

 SEDNAYA PRISON

I recommend following the developments from Syria.  I realize this is a difficult thing to do if one takes no newspapers, but TV should at least show photos and videos of the conditions inside the prison. Unfortunately, there is little information on how one got there.

We pride ourselves on being modern and progressive:  the future is aglow with possibility.  We live in an age of human potential:  there are no limits to what our imaginations can create.  We are better educated, better nourished, better cared for than any time in history and we expect this to continue for ever and ever - Amen.

I say, however, take a look at Sednaya and read the reports coming from Syria about it and the people that were taken there.  It appears to have been the last stop before liquidation having been tortured, starved and abused elsewhere first.  A person was just picked up by unknown people and disappeared never to be heard from again.  And once you consider this, you have to ask yourself what's so different in the human species from 1560 when  thousands of humans were being burnt at the stake by other humans for purposes of edification and entertainment.

I'm not convinced we have progressed very far.  Take a look at Putin's Russia which now is responsible for several hundred thousands of deaths from their invasion of Ukraine.  You have to ask yourself, just what is that all about?  What has been accomplished?  And, if you have never heard of Chechnya, you may want to Google it - - see what Putin did to it.  

To those in charge in these examples, other people's lives are meaningless.  They don't matter.  Other things are way more important than a bunch of people who either don't do what they are told or ignore you altogether.  

Assad and Putin are in charge you say and they are responsible.  But what I really want to point out is the hundreds and thousands of other human beings who do the work of torture, of starvation, of imprisonment.   Do you remember the Nazi concentration camps, the Soviet Gulag, the Argentinian and Brazilian and Chilean governments who tortured and killed thousands of their own citizens.  It took vast numbers of people to do the actual work and they did it to people just like themselves.

One needs to remember there is always someone available to throw you out of a helicopter.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

In the Case of Mumford

 IN THE CASE OF MUMFORD

Supreme Court of Iowa

A regular observation of mine is our government at work.  I practice as a criminal defense attorney and believe it a public service  to educate the public of our government's activities when appropriate.  My clients, as a criminal defense attorney, are criminals; they are criminals because they have been defined as such.  And what is more we are all criminals in one way or the other.  Now, in The Case of Mumford, she was engaged in a particularly nasty criminal act.  The arresting officer said  the last two digits of her license plate were not "clearly legible".

There is a criminal infraction of driving with license plates that are not "clearly legible". This, according to the Court, is sufficient reason to stop the vehicle and since the vehicle is no longer in route, the local k-9 dog could do a sniff, and we all know where that leads.  The criminal infraction of not having a "clearly legible"  license plate also includes the provision that the license plates be "free from foreign materials".  Now when you say that a license plate must be "clearly legible" and "free from foreign materials" does this mean both or either?  The court is silent on this issue.

An interesting novelty in this case is that once the officer is standing behind the car, he can apparently read the two numbers he professes not to have been able to read from his moving squad car. A relevant inquiry might have been just how clean was the officer's windshield.  Mumford, in her defense, produced video and "photos showing that you could actually identify the last two digits.  Didn't matter.  The video and photos were taken while the car was at a stand still, not in motion.  Apparently this was a significant factor in the Court's decision.  I'm not sure why the "free from foreign materials" was not addressed, since presumably that would have freed the court from further analysis of "legibility". 

Once again we have reinforcement of my previous statements - - you can't drive without committing a crime, and hence, adding to the community wide need for  criminal defense lawyers.  It is quite clear you are not going to get a break.  Every effort will be made to convict you if you are charged with a crime from speeding to murder and once convicted you are a criminal.  

Another factor in this case is the reason for the stop.  Defendant's car had been seen at a residence of a person associated with illegal narcotics.  Clearly the reason for the stop had nothing to do with the license plate.  They stopped the car because they wanted to do a dog sniff.  See, you don't need a warrant for a dog sniff.  It is so much easier to do a dog sniff than trying to find probable cause for a search warrant and a lot less work.  You have no right to privacy in your vehicle contrary to what courts may say.  Check your pockets, the center console, and the glove compartment before driving. That trip to the grocery store could cost you.  This case stands for the proposition that you're just out of luck if you get stopped for driving - should have stayed home.

So once again folks an update on our government at work.  

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo