It's a Felony

 IT'S A FELONY

And you are darn right!  It should be!  Throwing a sandwich at an ICE officer and hitting him in the chest with it certainly should be a felony.  It shows total disrespect for an officer of the United States employed in capturing, detaining, and removing undesirables from mainland America.  Being disrespectful should be a felony, don't you think?  What are we coming to throwing sandwiches at a uniformed employee of the federal government?

Now you may think I'm over reacting.  Not at all.  Living in a country where this sort of behavior is thought proper or necessary is untenable.  ICE has an important function as do all law enforcement branches of the government.  Our legislatures have made sure of this with practically uncountable new crimes and punishments for those who don't show the proper respect for people in uniform of one kind or another.  We have  consequences here in the USA.

The question is, of course, how do we discourage this sort of behavior in particular.  We have learned through years of experience that by simply putting someone in jail doesn't really have the consequences that we had hoped for.  Many of those thrown in jail feel they shouldn't be there and have been done wrong and consequently there is a substantial recidivism and we need to avoid that if possible.  New suggestions need to be made.

How about requiring an offender to salute someone in uniform whenever they come in contact with one.  Saluting is and always has been a sign of respect.   After all you are saluting the uniform not necessarily the person in it and it is appropriate to do so since the people in that uniform are present for our protection after all.  Sometimes you may wonder what exactly they are protecting us from but that is another issue altogether.

I am putting forth  but one suggestion.  You, the reader, may have others.  Bowing is always a possibility although this form of salutation has long been unused here in  America.  Or, we could simply have a simple misdemeanor introduced and passed by congress or the state legislatures making it a ticketable offence that if one were within a certain distance of a person in uniform that one must show some sort of outward respect toward that person which obviously would not include throwing a sandwich at the chest of that person in uniform with which you have come in contact.

The new crime would have to be clearly enunciated and defined as to what specific behavior the person in the presence of a uniformed must show and this might not be easy but necessary all the same if it is to be enforced uniformly.  So, in conclusion, we must all give this some thought and especially conduct ourselves in an appropriate manner when in the vicinity of a person in uniform; and, if we do so, maybe legislation would be unnecessary.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Reckless Eyeballing

 RECKLESS EYEBALLING

Ishmael Reed

In our latest episode of books for bigots, Mr. Reed gives us some interesting things to think about, all of which are directly aimed at bigots.  In that the novel is directed directly at bigots, bigots would find little in it to applaud. Ishmael has much to say and uses a novel to say it which, I might add, can be an effective way of saying something.  Sometimes it is more effective to have a character say it than the author directly although in RECKLESS EYEBALLING it is clearly the author giving us his opinion on various things through the mouth of Mr. Ball, the protagonist. 

The comment that the movies are about monsters of one kind or another that have only one thing on their mind - - white women, is a rather unique intro to the issue of whiteness.  One certainly can't dispute this fact about superheroness.  When it comes to King Kong or superheroes like Superman, Batman, The Green Hornet, etc., black, brown, red, or yellow doesn't cut it - - white women for the large gorilla and those saving human kind from themselves.  The same goes for aliens from outer space.  There must be some idea out there in the universe that white women taste better when roasted or flayed or eaten in some other manner than black, brown, red, or yellow women.

Then you have those who maintain the earth is flat and believe flying too high jeopardizes punching a hole in the sky.  There are such people you know and one simply has to accept the ludicrous when dealing with them.  This, too, is often bigotry in bizarre mode.  Where one can adopt the ridiculous as fact, one usually finds incipient bigotry.  Always keep an eye on the irrational; it can often get out of hand and be dangerous.

By the way, eyeballing is the act of looking too long at one object and reckless eyeballing is a black man looking too long at a white woman.  In the past this has led to unfortunate circumstances for the eyeballer.  We must protect our white women folk at all cost, apparently for superheroes and aliens. In

There also appears to be an underlying irritation of Mr. Reed's in the form of white feminists.  He spends a considerable time in other publications discussing the effects of feminism on the black male with several remarks to the same effect in the novel under discussion.  He doesn't seem to believe that feminism has been very helpful to the black cause and wants this view known.

The other nemesis of black culture and life in the United States, according to Mr. Reed, have been the Jews apparently. One of his comments I find interesting and which will cause further thought is the idea the Jewish community uses the blacks as a buffer between them and the goyim.  After all the Jews are who killed Christ; black people weren't in the picture.  Western civilization has insisted on Jesus being white:  all the pictures I've seen of Jesus throughout my life indicate he is strictly Caucasian. Now that the Jews have someone they can shove in front of the white public, black people,  that gets the attention of the bigots and they are thankful for that or so says Mr. Reed.

  Upon finishing the book, I really didn’t have the impression that this was satire; although there is some reference somewhere that the novel was meant to be a satire and we should consider all or parts of it as such.  Whether the book or parts thereof are meant to be satirical or an accurate picture of American society is an interesting question and one that deserves some thought even if it were to be hotly contested by the Jewish community and bigots in general.  There is discussion by Mr. Reed in another publication that RECKLESS EYEBALLING was indeed intended to be satirical, however it did not impress me as being particularly satirical.

There is one digression early on which is pertinent to this discussion: the person who was to direct the play RECKLESS EYEBALLING,  Jim Minsk, a Jewish guy,  was lured to a fake southern college and murdered in some sort of bizarre Christian ritual. I'm not quite sure how this episode fits into the novel or adds to it other than an example emphasizing the view that Jews need blacks as a buffer between themselves and whites still.

Another totally unrelated topic raised in some random conversation on page 84 of the St. Martin's Press version is the idea that the most frequent object in European art (not recent) is a weapon.  Reed is correct in his view that European art is full of "murder and mayhem".  Between portraits of the aristocracy or the bucolic are the full scale battles or of people being tortured by one method or another.  European art does tend to reflect a serious defect in human nature.  However, it is not clear how these random reflections contribute to the novel other than to reflect poorly on our ancestors.

Reckless Eyeballing is actually about writing and getting staged a play - - a play of the same name as the title of the book.  It doesn't appear to be an easy task and one requiring the assistance of very unpleasant people.  So we do have a plot.  The center of the novel and our playwright is Ian Ball who overcomes all obstacles which consist mostly in the unpleasant people he must deal with to get his play on stage. But in the end all is well as the play is a huge success and we are led to believe that success enables Mr. Ball to accrue large sums of cash allowing him to return to his home island.

But as a last thought, the following:  At page 143 of the edition I read, the author makes an interesting comment through Ian Ball:  "Good grief, Ball thought.  Not only did the black and brown ones hate the white ones, but the yellow ones and each other as well".  Everyone must hate everybody.  Not a situation that holds much promise.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Tariffs There Are

 TARIFFS THERE ARE

Some may not know what a tariff is.  I can't think this is true of many.  Tariffs are making the news everyday.  Trump declares a tariff one day on some trading partner of the United States and the next day says he may wait awhile to negotiate.

There are duties and tariffs.  Duties are what the importer pays and tariffs are what those here in the United States pay to purchase products from another country.  As an example, Walmart which imports much of its inventory from China, imports an item at a cost of $1.00.  A 30% tariff would raise the cost of that item from $1.00 to $1.30.  Now Walmart is not going to eat that $.30; Walmart will pass that extra $.30 on to the customer.

The persons buying things from Walmart will now pay 30% more for the items they purchase.  This is a significant increase in cost to the average household.  Where did that $.30 go?  It went to the government.  The government now has an extra $.30 for every dollar of imports coming from that particular country.  In the case of China that could be billions of additional money flowing into the treasury which is coming from us.  

Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" gets the headlines.  You and I will be getting a tax break here and there and this will make us feel good - - presumably.  After all, we will pay fewer taxes and be able to use the extra cash for needed items.  WRONG.

Tariffs are taxes.  By increasing tariffs, the government is increasing our taxes and siphoning off billions of dollars. This tax will be paid by you and me, not Walmart.  By imposing tariffs, Trump is imposing taxes and he is doing it by himself in a method that is most likely unconstitutional.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says:

"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."

The president of the United States does not have the power to impose taxes.  It is my understanding that Congress has given the executive branch some power in regard to tariffs in certain circumstances but I am uncertain of those.  The matter is now being litigated in the courts.  

But imposing taxes he is doing - - by himself and changing them almost daily making it almost impossible for a company like Walmart to implement any particular policy or take any particular action when their costs change daily.   It is a real mess and probably not constitutional.  And if it is not constitutional, it is not legal.  If Congress doesn't decide to act and regain some of the governmental power that the constitution says it has, we will be ruled by one person which is something that has never been contemplated in this country.  We should not allow it now.  When forming this country we rejected monarchy and have fought dictatorships most of our history.  It does not work out well for the citizens when one person has no check on his authority.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Sameness

 SAMENESS

The irrational triumphs.  The irrational has arisen continually throughout history as if it is a returning plague. The deportation of thousands and possibly millions is an example and is irrational. With Trump deporting all the people who usually tend to the rich and famous or do the jobs no one else will do, finding people to tend the estate,  or harvesting the produce and caring for the infirm, is becoming difficult.  We're not sure it's working out as intended.  Deporting people got our elected representatives elected, but come to find out, the deported were the ones doing the work and  maybe we ought to rethink this.

But realize this; being illegal is not the issue.  The deportation of thousands and possibly millions of people from the United States is simply one aspect of our incipient racism. This is simply a form of racism camouflaged.  The anti-abortion activism began it; it too is racist.  White America is afraid.  They have taken a look around and seen that non-white America is increasing in size and influence and it frightens them.  Hence the effort to increase white births surfaced.  We want more white people and less non-white people.  Trump's invitation to white South African farmers can be explained in no other terms than openly racist.

   

Then we have the  attack on DEI which is an attack on the education of non-white people.  We do not want black, brown, or yellow people better educated than white people and this is happening.  Again difference is anathema and sameness is good as long as it is white sameness.  All of these current efforts have one aim - - whiteness regardless of the cost. 

We live in a society that has no clue; the general public is uneducated, uninformed, and often religiously dominated with a religion that insists on conformity to their specific views. This is especially true of the white general public.  The success of the United States as a country, with its level of prosperity, has little to do with those already here.  Our success is the result of people who come here because they want to be successful, or at least find a job, and have access to the resources that allow them to be so.  

I am a white guy so I can say these things.  I live in a part of the country that supports Trump and the forces that elected him.  I am also a criminal defense attorney who has actual and constant association with people who are treated poorly.  I represent those people; I represent them against the power of government which  currently reflects the broader efforts I've described.  I see daily how we treat other people, those who do not meet certain standards:  poorly.  When you put someone in prison for half a lifetime because a product they use such as meth will ruin their life, you are treating that someone poorly and irrationally - - apparently it's better for the government to ruin your life rather than you ruining it yourself; and, we have always put a higher percentage of nonwhites in jail or prison than whites and we lead the world in imprisonment - - us, the land of the free have more people in prison than Russia and China put together.

One only has to observe to realize what kind of world we live in and it can be a very dangerous place for the other.  And it doesn't have to be; that is what is so disturbing.  It is uncaring and often irrational.  People do not need to be treated as they are being treated here in the United States and it does not speak well for us.  The recent reduction in funds for health care for those who can't afford it and the mass detention and deportation speak for themselves.  Unfortunately the war against the other has happened periodically throughout history and presumably will continue to happen and to be fair it is not only us that treat people poorly; but at least we should recognize it for what it is and make some attempt to ameliorate it.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Dark Side

 THE DARK SIDE

We see it now; we see it again.  It has arisen from the depths as it always does and will do - - the dark side of America.  It has always been here, sometimes apparent, sometimes not.  It was submerged for many years, but always waiting and pondering the time it was to rise again.  The reaction to George Floyd, the new demonstrations, the anger of the black public once again rose from dormancy and told white America it was not finished, there is more to do.

And once again white America reacted:  it took a while but it slowly gathered momentum - - the attack on what is now called DEI - - diversity, equity, inclusion.  We no longer call it racism; but it is racism at its finest and most inclusive.  One simply can't hide the obvious.  Diversity, equity, and inclusion are, or at least have been, words of importance, words denoting common values and goals.  Not now.

We now have the vocabulary to stigmatize anyone who is not white or properly white-like and with that stigmatization gather again the forces of repression and exclusion.  They have always been with us; sometimes muted and sometimes not.  Now they have again risen to dominate the landscape.  Trump is not the source of this; he is the result and rides its momentum.

This too will fade, but not before it does damage to all of us.  It is the acceptance of brutality towards thousands if not millions.  It is the effort to destroy our educational institutions which produce those who question.  It is a quest of power unprecedented in American history.  It is the empowerment of those who most vehemently want a white society with what they believe is the power to obtain it.

What makes the movement more dangerous than it would be otherwise is the realization that it is not to be.  The battle for whiteness will not achieve its goal.  We, the United States, have become what it was always envisioned by some to be:  a haven for those who need a haven, a new beginning, an escape from an intolerable life.  And most of these new people are not white and many are not Christian both of which are anathema to what is suppose to be here - - whites and Christians.  Our Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, quoting a bible verse as the culmination of the passage of Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" encapsulates perfectly the prevailing attitude.

The United States does not have enough births to replace its population.   Japan and China with their aging populations have the same issue and may soon have a crisis of aging.  How do they support all their old people and have enough workers for their factories and farms?  We, here in the United States, don't have this problem - yet.  We have immigrants who do the work and their children will be Americans just like us; a fact that is intolerable to many.  If nothing else we are talking simple economics.

We live in a capitalist world; a capitalist world depends on an expanding population with increasing wealth - - what is produced has to be consumed.  Consumption is the necessary element in a modern economy.  Without consumption there will be no production; without production there will be no jobs; without jobs there will be no Social Security for those who require it.  Immigration fuels our economy and supports our aged.  Those who support this new racism in the name of DEI have no understanding of the consequences if their wishes were to be realized when thousands if not  millions of  people here in the United States are picked up and forcibly deported to places unknown to them.  Treating people poorly not only reflects on us as a people but affects us in many ways obviously hidden to many.   

There are more reasons not to be a racist than to be one but to understand this would take some reflection and maybe some kindness. As I began, the dark side of America has arisen again.  It does so periodically but regularly.

I wish it were not so.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

In Search of Ignorance

 IN SEARCH OF IGNORANCE

A strange title indeed, at least for those who might read this piece.  Ignorance is not something you search for, it is something to avoid, to make an effort not to be such.  Not so, I'm afraid; ignorance is relentlessly sought by vast numbers of people.

Not only is it sought, it is a matter of pride to not know anything.  We all know people who are profoundly ignorant with pride; for some it is status within their circle of acquaintances.  "Hey, I'm more ignorant than you and I can prove it."  And it happens early.

There are those who gave up reading for content in 2nd grade; you probably sat by several throughout your years of k-12 who had no interest in being where they were merely taking up time that they could have used to watch tv at home.   These children had an instinct for ignorance; they certainly couldn't articulate it at the time, but it was there and active.

The parents, those who were the children referenced above, have now found the answer; the answer to ensure a continuing massive ignorance in their numerous children:  home school.  There just are things that they don't want their children to know; it's not good for them; it causes unnecessary problems, and they are not going to be allowed to know these things if it can be helped.

Being a criminal defense attorney, I deal with the maximally ignorant so am somewhat influenced by what I see in my daily activities dealing with people charged with criminal conduct.  There are those who can't help it, I admit.  These people have always been with us and always will be.  Having a populace that can sign their name along with a vocabulary of 500 words  doesn't speak for much.  And again, for those who are reading this, the level of ignorance may be something you have heard about or seen in your own effort not to be ignorant but find it difficult to grasp the actual level of ignorance in the general public.  The people who reflect this vast ignorance really do appear to be much of the public.  But it can happen to any of us in a given situation and we will realize our own ignorance about something specific and make an attempt to alleviate the condition.   

As an example of ignorance in high places - - none of us are immune - - our Supreme Court promulgated a written guilty plea form of eleven pages with the pronouncement that each and every defendant pleading guilty and using the form to do so must either read or have it read to him or her and understand it.  It is difficult to determine how the Supreme Court could come to the conclusion that the typical defendant would actually read something and  understand what he or she was reading or being read to or cared.  Talking with a defendant who is facing a probation violation, on inquiry of his original sentence, can not tell you what his or her sentence actually was, just that it wasn't jail.

Wherever possible, I and many others, use the old plea form of two pages where the defendant says he did it and what he did and pleads guilty so he can be done and allowed to go about his normal daily routine:  the end.  It is a very simple process and one that is repeated thousands of times daily.  The only real issue is that most of these people are allowed to vote and have guns, not that they understand what they plead to.

Unfortunately, the more the human species knows as a unit, the more ignorant we as individuals become.  We can't know much of what there is to know.  So, we are all to some degree ignorant.  But let's agree on one thing:  some of us make an effort not to be while others insist on it.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Great Irony

  THE GREAT IRONY

One does not conclude that one's dog, cat, or other human companion is stupid when it does something seemingly irrational, careless, dangerous, or whatever.  It simply doesn't occur to us that our animal companion has given it any thought as opposed to simply reacting in a manner consistent with their nature.

We humans, on the other hand, pride ourselves on our brain and the ability to transcend pure reaction and instinct.  This pride is justified in much that has been accomplished over our history.  HOWEVER.  The fact is that our intelligence is co-existent with stupidity.  With intelligence comes stupidity.  They go hand in hand and cannot be separated.

The ability to think gives us the ability to be stupid.  It is indeed the great irony.  Without a brain such as ours, stupidity would be non-existent.  A day will not go by when we, during the course of our daily activities, do not come across a statement, an act, a resolution of another human being that we do not consider stupid.  It is invariably true that we encounter daily activities and statements which to us are deemed just plain nonsense:  not to the purpose, irrelevant, counterproductive, etc.  The adjectives denoting stupidity are practically endless.

It follows necessarily, that we, the human species, have a self-regard that is unwarranted.  We think we are pretty special.  Our religions, our societal norms, our therapists all either presuppose our specialness or encourage the belief in it.  As much intelligence as is exhibited on a certain day, as much or more stupidity is exhibited  with it.  If one were to have any awareness at all, one can not deny this aspect of our lives here on planet earth.  We do stupid things as readily as we do intelligent things as we have always done and will always do.  There is no future where intelligence will rule over stupidity; they are of equal durability.  

The stated purpose of education, training, socialization, etc. is to encourage intelligence and decrease stupidity.  Unfortunately, the more highly educated, the more highly trained a person becomes, the greater likelihood of stupidity.  One simply can not have intelligence free of stupidity.  It can't happen.  You can not have one without the other; they are co-existent.

It seems to me that maybe, just maybe, we ought to not think so highly of ourselves; a little humility might be beneficial knowing that doing stupid things is inevitable and we will do them.

Richard E H Phelps II