Tertiary Flatulence

  TERTIARY FLATULENCE

It's ironic how one topic can lead into another.  Nuclear war quite easily follows a discussion of flatulence.  It's clear that nuclear war is necessary for a restart of the human species.  It's time to clear the deck and begin again.  We've really made a mess of it and the more flatulence, the more global warming, the closer the planet becomes to being uninhabitable.

The opinion expressed here is not contrary to the opinion of my favorite philosopher, George Carlin, who believed the earth will take care of itself and will be here long after we are gone regardless of what we do to it, and the present, to my way of thinking, is the beginning the process as we go about our daily business. You can feel it in the air - heat.  Earth will survive a nuclear war just fine - -  it's the human species that needs rehabilitation.  And if we take the rest of biological life with us, oh well, it can't be helped.

Rather than having 9,000,000,000 humans suffering unnecessarily, slowly cooking to death, a nuclear holocaust seems to be the answer.  Let's just get it done and over with.  The sooner we eliminate most of mankind, the quicker we can start over - - make a new beginning.  According to some it happened with Noah so it's not a new idea - - been around a long time.  

As it stands now, suffering will be endemic to life on earth.  Already people can't  insure their million dollar houses and magnificent office towers being swallowed by an ocean or blown away by a hurricane or a tornado sweeping the countryside,  AI will unemploy millions, the poor and needy will overrun the northern hemisphere. There will be nowhere to hide from catastrophe. Those with unlimited resources in their hidden retreats will need more than their billions to save them from the starving multitude who will swarm their estates looking for anything worth anything.

I say, let's just get it over with.  No sense in drawing things out.  Push a couple of buttons and whoosh we are no more.  Easy as that.  Those that don't get incinerated by the blasts will quickly expire of radiation poisoning.  Let's not do this half way, shoot them all off.  Russian, China, and whoever else has  nukes stored away in their silos can get into the act.  It could even be a UN resolution setting a date certain.

Not too far in advance though.  Just enough time for humans to make peace with all those who they have ignored, humiliated, or otherwise treated poorly.  A day or two at the most.  More time than that and people will start to think twice about ceasing to exist.  Not good; it has to be done before people become maudlin about the whole thing.

So in summary, it is clear that a nuclear holocaust will be the direct result of flatulence.  A clear connection exists; one necessarily follows the other.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

On Flatulence Amplified

 ON FLATULENCE AMPLIFIED

Appropriately, On Flatulence caused some comments and a followup is necessarily apt. Numerous articles have appeared recently, presumably authored by vegetarians and environmentally conscious folk, regarding the amount of methane emitted into our atmosphere through cow flatulence.  It would appear from numerous sources that the amount of methane, a climate warming contributor, being produced by bovines is excessive and something must be done about it.

Of course, the immediate suggestion is to quit eating cows.  This does not seem to be probable; cow protein has become a staple in all advanced countries with the possible exception of Australia whose residents seem to have replaced cow with sheep.  I am not knowledgeable as to the amount of methane being emitted into the atmosphere from sheep so I will ignore sheep methane for my purpose here.

However, I believe just as important to the production of methane in our atmosphere is human flatulence.  One source indicated that approximately 7% of human flatulence is methane gas.  Now 7% doesn't seem like a lot until you realize that there are about 9,000,000,000 of us.  That seems to me a significant amount of methane being emitted into the air and creating climate warming.  It somewhat muzzles the argument that humans are not the cause of climate change - - we produce it directly.

I don't hear a groundswell of opinion to reduce the amount of methane in the air by reducing the number of humans.  Unfortunately the world economy can only be maintained if there are people to buy stuff they don't need.  The fewer the people, the fewer goods sold, the fewer workers needed, the less money available to buy all the stuff we don't need.  This could easily end in a depression equalling 1929 - - just think, a hundred years ago.

So, it would appear that we are between a rock and a hard place.  Where to turn?  As always, I am open to suggestions on correcting the heating of the planet.  But it does seem inevitable looking at the influx of methane into the atmosphere.  We have cows who produce methane and we eat the cows creating more methane.  The only method available to reduce this production of methane is to reduce the number of humans.  With fewer humans, fewer cows, and less methane will be produced.

Clearly the  answer for a stable environment is fewer humans depression or no. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

On Flatulence

 ON FLATULENCE

An incidence of flatulence does not signify an end of the world nor, contrary to our overly olfactorily  sensitive citizens, does it cause asphyxiation.  It is simply the product of ingestion which we all participate in and will do so until death.  It is one of these, unfortunate to some, common occurrences that cause serious alarm in the more sensitive.

Now a bathroom is normally an enclosed space and if properly enclosed can isolate any flatulence associated with its use.  Unfortunately for some, the bathroom is not the only location in a home or public that one can experience flatulence or to be subject to its effects.  Flatulence may be random, happening when least expecting it.  It occurs often in crowded environments and when you may be attempting to concentrate on a task at hand it could very well be inadvertent.

Flatulence has, on occasion, been the cause of hard feelings and name calling between those responsible and those subjected.  Now being a criminal defense attorney, I have my usual response to this problem - - criminalize flatulence in crowded spaces.  My suggestion would be that in a group of three or more, flatulence be classified as a simple misdemeanor with the usual prescribed penalty of not more than 30 days in jail and a fine.  And since flatulence is the result of ingestion which must continue until death, it will never go away and will continue to be one of those things in life that cause annoyance and for which prosecution may result.

Criminalization is the method by which my income can be increased and another method by which our legislature can continue to criminalize its citizens.  Obviously, proof determining who of a group is responsible for the flatulence would be an issue.  Proof could be difficult and would take witnesses of those affected adversely.  Though a problem for law enforcement, the more difficult the matter of proof, the more time would be involved in defending those charged which again increases the amount that can be charged for the defense of the crime.  All of which, to my mind, is a good thing.

So there you have it folks - - another problem, another solution. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Amendment 1

 AMENDMENT I

The hullabaloo over the 2nd Amendment roars on unabated - - we need our guns!  This refrain seems constant.  As a criminal defense attorney, I have former clients calling about how they might get their gun rights back.  They need their guns back as if that were the necessary requirement for their self-esteem.  I've never had one ask me how to get their wife or kids back, just their guns.  Apparently guns are more important than wife or kids.

However, if one were to actually read the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the gun thing comes in second to religion.  Religion frightened our founding fathers and rightly so.  It really hadn't been too long since the protestants and the catholics were slaughtering each other all over Europe, the auto de fé was still in mind, and witches and heretics recently were still being burnt to a crisp or dunked till drowned.  Jews were still being killed at random and muslims were the antichrist.  To people like Benjamin Franklin, Samuel and John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, religion above all other things, concerned them the most.

Amendment 1 of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people  peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievance."

Folks, this is number one!

The Puritans didn't much care for the religious climate in England which was apparently way too indifferent.  What they preferred was an enforced, religiously based government in New England, which they created as soon as they got here.  So the idea that the American colonies were founded for purposes of religious freedom needs some closer scrutiny than most are willing to give it. 

Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, New York supported  the Anglican Church; New England supported the Congregational Church;  Delaware, Rhode Island, Georgia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey had no colonial supported religion.  The founding fathers decided that a government sponsored religion would not be allowed in any national government for it would cause way too many problems as it had in the previous centuries.  And, you know, it still would. 

We have people of certain religious  views today attempting to implant their views into the rest of us.   We are seeing a resurgence of these efforts in the United States now.  Listen to the TV and radio evangelists, look to the book banning and the laws being passed. Religion by nature is intolerant; it abhors difference.  We have a new, successful effort through our legislature here in Iowa not only to monitor and control behavior, but to control beliefs - - the beliefs opposing their beliefs.

Fortunately or unfortunately we have a country that is made up of every possible religion and political belief found on the planet.  The idea that one group will now impose its beliefs on the rest of us, is not only unconstitutional, but simply absurd.  Regardless of the efforts, it isn't going to happen.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

A Cult

 A CULT

There comes a time when one is required to call something by its correct name.  A cult following, according to Wikipedia, is a group of fans who are highly dedicated to some person, idea, object, movement, or work.  Trumpdom has now become a cult.  People will drive hundreds of miles and sleep in their cars overnight to see Trump in person.

They have taken as their guide the Deadheads, the fans of the Grateful Dead, who follow the band from venue to venue.  They attend the live performances of the band wherever.  The people of Trumpdom have taken on this same aura of cultness.  They go for the show; they go for the performance; they're hooked on the presentation.  They drive hundreds of miles, they sleep in their cars, they buy and wear Trump paraphernalia - - hats and what not - - and always the videos and the selfies.  It's a real scene; they have bought in. 

But once a cult, always a cult; it cannot transform itself into another form; the fans will not allow it.  They have to have the show.   Without the show, the followers will disappear - - no show, no fans.

Trump no longer has a choice, he must give them what they want.  And giving them what they want is profitable, just ask the Grateful Dead.  It is and always has been a profitable enterprise to be a cult leader and Trump understands this very well. 

Trump knows this is where the money is:  Trump Land - - a vision made to fit whatever idea of America one might have.  There is no coherence, no ideological thread, no actual vision of the future, simply a rant of unfulfillment, of some unarticulated need for something not present.  Trump's fan club can give you no rational basis for their adoration; just as the Deadheads can give you no rational basis why they will follow the Grateful Dead around the country other than to possibly gain some semblance of comaraderie with other Deadheads.

It is an interesting idea though, to have a president as cult leader with cult followers who will fulfill the will of the cult leader's every whim.  Just think, a president as cult leader!  Don't visions of Jamestown or Waco come to mind when you think it: they do for me.  That should give a person some hesitation in welcoming such a thing, but alas, I may be overwhelmed with the excitement of it all.

Nevertheless, it is an interesting spectacle.  Usually the cult and cult followers are some small, fringe group of people you don't know and have never heard of  who are following some Yahoo you also don't know and have never heard of.  Not this time.  It's major - - serious stuff; one that we ought to pay attention to and see where it lands.  

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Inferno

 THE INFERNO

For those unsubscribed, The Inferno is a poem - - a fourteenth century Italian poem written by a guy named Dante.  It has become, more or less, the average Christian's view of what hell is like for those of less than required obedience and worship.  How it  became the vision of hell for the modern believer is difficult to understand since it was completed in 1314.

For those with computational difficulties, that is 710 years ago.  Yes there was a civilization back then and once again it was located in Italy.  The Italians seem to have a proclivity of advancing civilization every thousand years or so.  I'm certainly ready for the next effort.  But back to The Inferno.

The Inferno is a poem, it is not a report from someone who has visited hell and given us a full scenario upon their return; nor has any of the underworld creatures portrayed there risen and presented documentaries of life in Hades.  Once again, for those unacquainted with poetry, or literature of any kind, poetry is literature - - in this case someone's visualization of somewhere else or in this case an extended metaphor.  A poem is a collection of words that create meaning in the person reading them, in this instance Hell.

Dante's Hell fairly well represented life in 1300 for those who couldn't cope for one reason or another.  It must have occurred to a few that what Dante was really doing was portraying life as it was - topside.  From what I understand, and because of this depiction,  Dante didn't create a very good impression on the folks in charge of Florence at the time and it was suggested that he be a candidate for burning at the stake.  Hence he fled Florence for safer environs.  He apparently wasn't up for experiencing hell while still alive.

Today poets are simply ignored, so no danger there of burning to a crisp over an open fire.  But our standard version of Hell has Dante to thank.  I'm sure others have opted for their own characterizations, but Dante is the king of Hell.  His was the best and by the best I mean the most complete depiction.  I'm sure that such figures as Calvin, Knox, Wesley, Increase and Cotton Mather, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Oral Roberts all had their particular visions of Hell for those who fall away from the faith and would share their visions every Sunday with the faithful.

Hell has always been and probably will always be the method by which you keep the unlearned and needy in fear and in line.  Do what I tell you or Hell is the result with concurrent suffering, agony, and serious pain for ever and ever.  This has worked for thousands of years and seems unabating.  Wouldn't surprise me if the Incas, the Aztecs, and Mayas had a similar place for those so chosen.  If it works, use it; and they do.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

 

The Enemy

 THE ENEMY

One of the more ironic attitudes in modern American life, and in Iowa particularly, is the attitude that China is our enemy.  After all, we have declared it so and once declared it becomes fact.  This is how it works folks.  So, if we can give it as a fact that China is our enemy then we must be prepared for war or whatever.   It is time we gave it some thought however, which though difficult, is necessary.

I have not made a definite calculation, but I would suspect that at a minimum half the things in my house and office are made in China or by Chinese (Taiwan included).  So the first item to consider is how do we maintain when there is nothing to buy at Walmart (if Walmart still exists since the majority of the stuff they sell us is from China) and we can not replace the most mundane items needed in our daily existence?  A declaration of war would be a serious hindrance to our consumption of needed and unneeded household items.

Secondly, China has been around since recorded history and obviously pre-recorded history.  So it is safe to say that China has been here thousands of years, is here now, and will be here (I'm willing to wager) long after we are gone.  You can have all the wars you want, you can obliterate half the planet and make the other half uninhabitable, but China will still be here and we will not.  This is my bet.  We are newbies and whether we have enough collective intelligence to last very long is currently open to question.

Another boogeyman: China doesn't want our farm ground, they want our money and they are getting it as fast as we print it.  We print money and then give it to the Chinese, South Koreans, Indians, Saudis, ad infinitum.  These are the people who have all our money.  And I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing - - just look at all the junk we have laying around that we have traded the Chinese for - -  junk for money.  Seems logical to me.

What we should be doing instead of declaring China an enemy, we should be declaring some helpless little country minding its own business as our enemy.  We have a solid track record in this regard:  Panama, Grenada, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.  Declaring war on Grenada or Iraq doesn't quite have the same risks as declaring war on China.  So once again, let's give all this a little thought before we get too carried away with this enemy stuff.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo