Family Values

 FAMILY VALUES

As has been pointed out, Jesus wasn't a family man.  In fact it would appear that he and his disciples wandered around the countryside living on alms.  There is no indication any of them were gainfully employed and although it appears that Jesus could feed the multitude, there is no indication that he used godlike powers to feed himself and his twelve disciples.  

Which brings us to the last supper.  One has to wonder where those victuals came from.  Since, once again, there is no indication that any of them were gainfully employed, some or all of the thirteen must have had independent sources of income; or else, how could they sustain themselves?  We have no information on this issue and it would seem to me to be relevant.  

As with all presentations, much must be left out simply for reason of brevity and irrelevance.  However, there is much to think about when it comes to means of support.  If Jesus or any of his followers had wives and children, they certainly were ignored and left to fend for themselves - - it would seem.  One can not assume otherwise; for if one does assume differently, one is simply making things up with conjectures and opinions without facts.

Consequently, one must accept the fact  that family life didn't have much attraction for Jesus and the others which brings us to the issue of "family values" being one of the foundations of our religious faith.  The family is important, the family is relevant, the family is sacrosanct - - these appear to be ideas firmly entrenched in our Christian mythology; and one can only wonder where the idea of "family values" ever came from.

It certainly didn't come from the Bible.  Family often didn't work out well.  Look at Cain and Abel, or, how about Jacob being sold by his brothers?  And then you have Noah and his daughters, but that is another story altogether.  Abraham was ready and willing to kill his kid. It just doesn't seem that the family was of much concern to those portrayed.  How would you like to have been in Soloman's family if you could have even called it a family?  Now that would have been interesting.  Does a harem constitute a family?  I think we need biblical exegesis on all these issues before we can even begin to think that the idea of family had much value  in biblical times.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

It's Not a Search

 IT'S NOT A SEARCH

It's a dog lover's paradise.  A highly trained dog is an inspiration to all.  If you don't like dogs, I don't know what to tell you.  Many police departments, sheriffs, and other law enforcement agencies in Iowa and elsewhere now have dogs they drive around with so they can sniff out illegal substances.  Of course, this doesn't apply to marijuana for the reason that every cop in America has a nose acute enough to smell marijuana, burnt or unburnt, and in whatever form it may take without the use of a canine.

I am assuming it is part of the training of becoming a law enforcement person, learning the smell of marijuana.  They must have a special room at the training facility for that with the ability to fill it with various aromas of marijuana and marijuana products.  Isn't it amazing how much money is spent to stop you from using a little THC?  Just think, they get a whiff of marijuana and they can force you from your car and tear it apart looking for illegal substances.  Woe to you if you just drove in from Illinois and they find a "stem" while tearing your car apart and hence charge you with marijuana and haul you off to jail, impounding your vehicle, and otherwise making your day more difficult than it already was.  Welcome to Iowa.

What's particularly amusing is that a dog being pulled around your car to sniff out illegal substances is not a search.  And why is that? Because the courts say so.  They have simply decided that stopping your vehicle, either pulling you out of the car or not, and having their trained mutt prance around your car a couple of times to smell for illegal substances is not a search.  It is a wonderful thing when you can simply define something out of existence; when a search is not a search because they say it's not a search.  I wish I could do that.  It would make life a lot easier.

But the war on drugs continues here in Iowa and elsewhere.  I suggest you invite a member of the drug task force to give a talk to your school sometime.  Rather than asking him or her about the evil  of drugs, ask things like how they are funded and who funds them, how much money is involved in a search of a home where they find some marijuana.  Or better yet, how much time they spend going through people's garbage looking for evidence of illegal substances?  Do they have a particular affinity for garbage? Pertinent questions like that.

If it weren't for the fact that our governments have made it their business to make our lives as miserable as possible, the whole drug thing would be amusing.  But it is not amusing, when minding your own business, harming no one, having a decent day, you are hauled off to jail in handcuffs, hands behind your back, in the rear cage of a squad car,  and your car not only being impounded but ransacked so that you are not only required to pay to get out of jail but to pay to get your car out of hock. Quite an inconvenience actually, but fun for some.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

I'm for Bigotry!

 I'M FOR BIGOTRY!

You have to give it to our legislature and governor when it comes to bigotry.  They have what it takes.  This past legislative session put us on the map along with Mississippi and others where we say we don't want you if you're not like us.  This, of course, is a normal and, what I deem, appropriate response to the acceptance of LGBTQ in any form whatsoever.  Bigotry has a bad name you know, and unnecessarily so I might add.

And we might as well admit it to the world.  Our legislature and governor fully support bigotry, they just don't call it that.  Interesting how the lack of one word "bigotry" can make things seem normal as ever.  Bigots don't like to be called bigots or their behavior  bigotry - - it's not currently acceptable generally.  Therefore, we don't use the word.  It works wonderfully well in our truly illiterate culture.  If you call bigotry something else, like upholding family values or religious belief, all is well.  

All I'm saying is that we really ought to call a spade a spade and be done with it.  If you want to be a bigot, just say it and admit that you are a bigot.  If you are afraid to admit that you are a bigot, then you are admitting that you are pretty spineless - - a weak person who can be molded at will.  Just wait for ChatGTP, Bard, and others to kick in - - they will give you the amazing ability to actually pretend you know what you are talking about when you pontificate.

In their defense, and that is what this piece is about, most bigotry is called "hate speech" which is a derogatory term used to denote bigots.  I ask you, if you dislike bigots so much, how can you use such a bigoted term as "hate speech" to define them?  Seems a little inconsistent to me to be bigoted against bigots which the use of that term sure seems to denote.  It would appear that everyone might just be a bigot in one fashion or another.  Now I could be wrong, and am willing to listen to any contrary views.

Regardless whether we are all bigots in one way or another, our legislature and governor meet the criteria right off.  They are bigots purely and simply and pretty much admit it publicly and proudly.  They rejoice in being described as "bigots" for they are of the view that that is what gets them elected; and they are correct in their assessment.   We have a preponderance of bigots - - a majority of our citizens are apparently bigots.  Now you will want to say that I don't know what I'm talking about or I'm un-Iowan or some such thing.  The only response possible to such claims is to advise those making them to just admit to it and go about your business of being a bigot unashamedly.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Candy Corn

 CANDY CORN

You can just sense that our legislature is sniffing around trying to find something else to ban.  They are in a banning mood.  It makes them feel so much better if they can ban something.  You know, if they ban something, they then can make a new crime which is always at the top of their to-do-list.

I propose we ban candy corn.  Clearly candy corn is not good for you - - any dentist will tell you that as well as all mothers of young children who love candy corn.  There is a consensus that candy corn is unhealthy, causes cavities and obesity and hence should be illegal.  

Our local industries will not be affected by this ban.  The amount of corn based fructose used to make candy corn is small and will not affect the bottom line of our farmers who produce it.  The amount of candy corn sold by various businesses is quite insignificant in relation to the total amount of candy sold.  This would allow the legislature to slide in this piece of legislation quietly without much response from the major distributors of candy corn such as Walmart, Target, Walgreens, CVS, etc.

All in all, it could be quite a legislative coup.  The question would be what level of crime should possession of candy corn call for; should there be a significantly higher level of crime for a person distributing candy corn; should there be higher levels of punishment based on the quantity of candy corn in one's possession?  All these are legitimate questions and deserve the attention of the legislature.

In addition, it will give the highway patrol, sheriff departments, and local police forces another reason to stop cars, trucks, and other instruments of transportation when arriving in Iowa from another State.  We now have marijuana as the major instrument of interdiction, but I bet we can train our police dogs and law enforcement personnel to recognized the smell of candy corn; it does have a distinct odor when eating some; and as with marijuana, the people coming from where it is legal will be merrily chomping on pieces of candy corn as they pass the border into Iowa totally unaware that they can be arrested for possessing candy corn, taken to jail, required to post bond, having their cars towed where you have to pay again to have them released. If nothing else, it would  increase the State's income through fines, court costs, probation fees, and let's not forget, give employment to criminal defense attorneys which is always a good thing.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo  

That's a Great Question

 THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION

Any time you hear, on talk radio, tv, or otherwise someone say "That's a great question", you automatically know that the question asked was really stupid and the person asked the question is trying to figure out how to answer such a stupid question without looking stupid him or herself.  It takes a minute, usually  the reason that the statement "That's a great question" was made by the interviewee in the first place - -  to make time to reflect before answering.

Reflection really does not help though.  The answer will normally be a stupid one, since the question was stupid, but, if luck prevails,  the people listening to this exchange may not know a stupid answer from an intelligent one.  Therefore, no harm would be done to the person asked.  At least one can hope. 

What is never done, but which would add immensely to the exchange and give entertainment is to simply declare that "I'm not going to answer a question that stupid and I am offended that you would ask such a stupid question for the only possible reason of making me look stupid."  One does not have to act in a stupid manner simply because one is invited to do so; in fact, one should show some intelligence if available.

Now, the person asking the stupid question may be stupid enough not to know how stupid the question is and therefore, if one were to enlighten the questioner of the stupidity of the question, one would, hopefully, be doing the questioner a service by pointing out how stupid he or she is being and maybe next time they might possibly frame their question in a manner that doesn't cause immediate blow back; or even better, obtain another line of work and not ask stupid questions ever again.

The reader may think that this is a little over the top:  not at all I say.  One should not be required to appear stupid, especially when and where a number of people may be listening or viewing or otherwise able to hear the exchange.  A stupid question is not for the purpose of presenting ideas nor of the exchange of ideas; it is for the purpose of making the interviewee appear stupid and ridiculous.   This is a situation that the interviewee is immediately aware of, but most often, because of the listening audience,  will refuse to acknowledge the stupidness of the question.  It is the opinion put forth here, that the acknowledgement of the stupidity of the question and refusing to answer such a stupid question, would enhance the reputation of the  person refusing to answer such a stupid question significantly.  And, in addition, it may have the effect of  slowing the incidence of future stupid questions by equally stupid interviewers.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

We're Against It

 WE'RE AGAINST IT

We really need to be against more stuff, is what I say. I know I've got quite a list already and am ready to reach out to others to find things to be against. Right now I have what might seem to be quite a list but it feels incomplete. I'm always ready to add to it and am looking for candidates.

Right now my list includes muslims, buddhists, hindus, South Americans, Central Americans, Asians, lilliputians, anarchists, feminists, environmentalists, libertarians, gays, lesbians, LBFTQs, meth heads, other junkies, Marxists, communists, socialists, atheists, and whoever else doesn't vote Republican. Democrats and liberals are a suspect class, but grudgingly I will acknowledge they have a right to exist in a pluralist society such as ours. But not the others. Like we used to say about draft dodgers, if you don't want to be here and be a proud American and fight for your country and freedom, go live with people of your own kind; nothing's keeping you here. Good riddance.

The reason for this appeal, again, I'm wanting to add to the list - - it just doesn't feel complete. Maybe Zorastorians - - are there any of those left? There's got to be more people that I can be against and wish to disappear and if any of you have any good candidates let me know. We know who belongs and who doesn't here in middle America. You just can't be against too many people. It's a lack of character not to be against as many people as possible. After all, America was not made great by muslims, buddhists, hindus and other oddities of human nature and weneed to keep it that way or we will surely decline as a civilization and quickly.

And what's more, we need another really good enemy so that we maintain our military as the biggest and the best. That's why I'm happy to see that our elected representatives have decided China is an enemy. They declare it so. You only have to say someone is an enemy, and voilá, they are an enemy. Just about every other tweet (Star I should say) is giving us more reason to claim China as an evil doer - - and a really big one. Now they are buying up farm ground and rich Chinese are buying residences left and right and flying here to give birth of all things. It just isn't right, is what I say. We just have to be against Chinese specifically, not just Asians. (Mainland Chinese not Taiwanese.)

So in closing, give it some thought so I can add to the list. Maybe we can even get someone to pass a resolution - - make it official.

                                      Richard E H Phelps II 

Mingo

We Care!

 WE CARE!

Representative Dunwell has struck again.  He has now explained the importance of the Fetal Heartbeat Bill recently passed in the special legislative session.  Apparently, the three reasons for passage of the bill are:  (1) She has her own unique DNA, (2) She is not just a clump of cells, (3) She deserves to live.  And, it is all because we believe in "valuing and protecting life".

I simply would like to point out that according to recent accounts, thousands of Iowans are now being dropped from Medicaid coverage.  Of course, this is a good thing because we care and we value and protect life wherever it may occur.  We actually need more of this concern.  Surely we can kick off more people if we set our mind to it.  And at the same time, let's reduce unemployment benefits again.  We don't want people sitting around in urgent care facilities pretending to be sick or injured.  That will not do.  They can at least be serving up delicious burgers at McDonald's or Burger King.

It's very simple really:  Poor people do not need health care or a decent place to live and to raise their children.  It's simply not necessary.  Hovels are good enough for these people and if some of them get pregnant, so be it.  They can't get around having another mouth to feed by getting an abortion and terminating a heart beat.  The more poor people we have to do the work none of the rest of us want to do, the better.  If these people all of a sudden were to have decent health care or a decent place to live, we never would find enough people to work at Walmart or the local Dairy Queen.

It's clear that Representative Dunwell cares and cares deeply about the people of his district, especially those yet unborn - - even if they can't vote.  Ironically, these are the only people for which Representative Dunwell apparently cares - - oh, and those who own fast food businesses.  You can't really call them restaurants.  He cares about them.  I'm assuming, but could be wrong again, because they are the people who contribute to his campaigns.  I'm certain that the employees of McDonald's or Burger King don't vote for him and probably don't vote at all thinking correctly that it doesn't make any difference whether they vote or not, their lives will suck regardless.

So let's give two hurrahs for Representative Dunwell for looking out after our best interests; we couldn't be more proud of our elected officials in this state.  Our legislators spend their legislative time restricting our activities as much as possible.  More crimes, more injunctions, more book banning, more denial of health care and unemployment benefits, more denying women control over their bodies, more restrictions continually - - here in the land of the free and the home of the brave.  You just have to give credit where credit is due.

Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo