Slavery in America

 

SLAVERY IN AMERICA

On 1 January 1863, Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation ending slavery in the United States, right?  Wrong.  The United States has never given up slavery and neither have the several states.  It simply has moved from private ownership to government ownership - - socialism at work as some would say not knowing anything about socialism.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of the State of Iowa provides as follows:

"There shall be no slavery in this State; nor shall there be involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of crime."

There you have it folks, slavery and involuntary servitude still exists here in the land of the free.  If you have been convicted of a crime, that is.  So what do we do, we make more crimes every year.  Our legislatures are busy thinking up new ways to make more its citizens less free; it is an ongoing process - - more crimes, more involuntary servitude. 

A major difference between slavery before 1 January 1863 and slavery currently is that prior to 1 January 1863, slavery had mostly an economic function.  Today it is mostly political - - a tried and true method of controlling the public.  If you are convicted of a crime, you are subject to fines, imprisonment, probation, parole, sex offender registry, public identification, a loss of government entitlements, and probably others.  In other words, you are controlled by the government rather than by a plantation owner - - you have to obey.

Of course, one of the elements of the current involuntary servitude (we will call it that rather than slavery in that it doesn't sound quite as bad) is economic.  There is always the requirement that one be employed.  We must keep the economy moving at all costs and fast food places need workers all the time; they simply can't seem to keep employees very long and people on probation or parole required to seek employment are perfect candidates.

In conclusion, it really means a lot if and when people actually think about  the world they live in.  Most do not.  We Americans have been trained to believe that we are free - the most free of anybody on the planet - at some point we really ought to consider this statement rather than just accept what we are being told.  We have approximately 25% of the incarcerated people in the world.  Of the entire world mind you, not just China or Russia or Brazil or Iran or India but of the whole world entire.  We have several million on probation and parole; we have several million more who have no drivers licenses because they owe the government money or committed some infraction. 

So all I'm saying is, that before we start spouting off about how free we are, we give it some thought. 

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

What's It to You?

 WHAT'S IT TO YOU?

Representative Randy Feenstra, one of our more enlightened brethren, is stating unequivocally, that California liberals have no right to tell Iowa farmers they can't raise their livestock in a sadistic manner.  Apparently what happened in California, the majority of the people in a referendum passed a requirement that pork or chicken can't be sold in the State if the hogs and chickens are raised in a sadistic fashion which apparently many are because it's the most profitable manner in which to raise them.

The allegations are that many hogs are confined in crates where they can not turn around or possibly even lie down - - they can't move. The pork industry association claims that few US hog producers would then be able to sell pork in California without significant capital investment.  All I can say about this is, "Go Randy!"  Money matters, hog treatment doesn't.  After all, Randy is correct when he says that humane treatment of the animals we eat is a liberal fantasy and just won't fly here in Iowa.  Here we know what is important - - profit.  If some sow has to suffer for it, so be it, it can't be helped and west coast liberals should mind their own business.

Unfortunately, west coast liberals are minding their own business, a fact that Randy seems to miss.  What Californians are saying to us here in Iowa is that they have decided that they don't want our product.  They aren't telling us we can't raise our livestock in a sadistic manner, they are simply telling us they want no part of it.  Pretty simple really.  Do what you want, just don't involve us.  Apparently Randy believes Californians can not tell us how to raise hogs and chickens, but we can tell Californians what they can buy and eat.  That's one thing you have to give  Randy - - consistency.

Now if we are to define liberals as people who, one, do not want fellow creatures raised in a sadistic manner, or two, are against profiting from it, I'll have to admit I'm with the liberals on this one.  We, here in Iowa,  have passed numerous laws in the past few years making it a crime to mistreat pets, which to my understanding are animals.  How is it then, that hog producers and chicken producers are exempt from these laws?  If you treat a non-human critter in a sadistic manner as a crime, it doesn't seem particularly appropriate that such treatment can't be considered criminal if it is a farm business.  Our legislature has even passed laws making it a crime investigating such farming activities.  Making a profit doesn't seem to me as something that should be the deciding factor in what is criminal and what is just business.  

We have gone so far as to be outraged by puppy mills.  How can this be?  Puppy mills, people in the business of raising dogs for sale, are no different than hog producers and chicken producers except for one salient fact - - they are not considered farmers.  So how is it that we are outraged by the treatment of puppies; after all it is a profitable enterprise - - it is a business just like hogs and chickens.  So let's just get over it - - if these puppies are treated sadistically and then killed if not sold, it's just business just like raising hogs and chickens.

We need a little consistency here (as usual):  either treating animals sadistically is criminal or it isn't.  So forget about California; let's decide for ourselves how we want to proceed.  Iowa for Iowans is what I say.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Election Time

 ELECTION TIME

We will have another election, and another and another.  There will be more elections and in those elections we will normally be asked to choose between two candidates.  This is not a democracy in any form; it is simply an election.  When I write this, I am visualizing our Iowa legislature.  We elect people to "represent us" in the Iowa legislature.  What we actually have is a group of people who have no interest in the people who elect them other than for their vote in the next election.  

We elect people to enact laws but once elected give every indication of not knowing anything:  i.e with little understanding of the world around them or where it is going.  The world is going somewhere with or without their acknowledgement; and they will be on it for the ride whether they acknowledge it or not.  If you want to call it the Ark or you want to call it 'global warming'; it's coming for us.  Don't you know - - history repeats itself.

The flood and the ark really are a good example of what happens when we displease the gods, whichever god or gods you are inclined to have belief in.  The first story of the flood occurred in Gilgamesh, eons before it was adopted by the Jewish people.  Basically most everyone was killed and the human race started all over again.  This could very well be a recurring event in human history on this planet.  Wouldn't that be something!  We all get wiped out because we have displeased the gods - - again!

A difference, it seems to me, from the people of the flood is that we can see it coming. Although we really don't know that they didn't know.  There is no indication that the Akkadians or the  folks who lived with Noah understood the meaning of the term, "the end times".  However, one would have to assume that Noah's neighbors would have to have given the matter some thought - - the guy's really crazy or maybe we should get us a boat just in case. 

This time we can see it coming.  A planetary crisis is on the horizon and we can see it; we can visualize it; we have people telling us it is coming.  So what do we do about it?  Nothing.  We ignore it.  It must have been the same in Akkadian times or in the time of Noah.  What are you talking about?  A flood?  Give me a break already - - don't be stupid!

I only ask one thing, can't we elect someone who will actually acknowledge what is looming before us rather than worry that their children will realize gay and transgender people exist or that black people want to be full citizens or that there are people who would rather be high than participate in our current work-a-day world?  Is it really too much to ask?  

Richard E H Phelps

Mingo 

The Sporting Life

 

THE SPORTING LIFE

Having a sporting life is normally just  being a fan. Of course, one can play pickleball on a Sunday afternoon, but isn't that for exercise for old people?  I'm a fan.   Rooting for my favorite teams, one in each sport of course, is not engaging in sports, it accomplishes nothing - - it is a nil.  When I am watching a sporting event whether it be professional or my kid playing soccer or  whiffle ball, I accomplish nothing.  And this is the purpose of sports for those who are not actually participating in the "game": to accomplish nothing.

The premier example would be the World Cup.  It was difficult not to stop in, to one channel or another, to see who was winning, who was expected to win, and the crowds present to live and die with their country's team.  And then to see the crowds swell in cities around the world as their team had one success after another.  Another example is American football which currently has religious overtones and glues the eyes of millions to the screens to watch game after game of college and professional football every weekend (and now during the week).

And if it is not football, then basketball, baseball, softball, track and field, and hundreds, and I do mean hundreds, of other "sports" all the way to cornhole.  Watching a sporting event of any kind can be intoxicating, thrilling, depressing, exhilarating, and murderous - - it is feeling producing.  A sporting event produces feelings. It has as its function the production of feelings which produces the most important function of all, the production of income.

The latest sale of a professional football team will reach a billion dollars.  Who pays a billion dollars for a football team?  Those who want a second billion dollars.  A billion dollars is a lot of cash.  Those with a billion dollars understand that in order to make a billion dollars you have to have a billion dollars.  Money reproduces - - it has a high gestation rate.  And the production of feelings is a first-rate method of grabbing that second billion.

The other benefit of sporting activities is that it restrains millions of people from doing anything at all for significant periods of time.  If a person is sitting in front of the TV or in the stands, he or she is not causing anyone any trouble, nor is he or she producing anything worthwhile.  They are simply engaged in the creation of feelings: fleeting,  intense, self-generating feelings.  

This is our current life - - our feelings.  I can feel depressed in the first quarter of a football game, hopeful in the second quarter, anxious in the third quarter, and gleeful in the fourth.  All in two hours - - how great is that? - - a lifetime of emotion in two hours.  Better than a 800 hundred page novel, that's for sure.

However, my understanding, my appreciation of life, the content of my knowledge has not increased in any sense having just watched the Yankees beat the Minnesota Twins.  My understanding, my appreciation of life, my store of knowledge has increased not at all having seen Judge hit another homer to win the game.  Nothing in my life has improved nor lessened because of the two hours I spent sitting in front of a TV with or without friends, with or without food and drink.  

What I have accomplished is spending two hours of a finite lifetime watching someone else play a game.  When one gives this just a little bit of thought, one suddenly realizes that it really is, throughout a life, a vast amount of time without accomplishment.  But then again, most people have a vast amount of time with which to do nothing; their lives are basically without meaning or significance anyway.  I get it. I recently clicked on a channel showing a game of beach volleyball.  Apparently tall, lithesome men and women are paid to play volleyball on a beach in front of spectators and cameras.  Why would an adult, a semi-intelligent person, spend a minute of his or her life watching four people hit a ball over a net in the sand?  I have no answer.  We really have reached a new low in human non-activity.  But let us go elsewhere for the moment.

It is clear that sporting events have been occurring since communities have arisen.  And I must say, having the satisfaction of your team beating another team is certainly better than having a war between the two and this is a positive reason for sporting events.  When two Mayan cities had a sporting contest, it had the same function as a sporting contest today between St. Louis and Kansas City, it gives the populace something to do on their days off rather than rioting or just being a general nuisance and causing unnecessary work for law enforcement.

It would seem to me that this massive use of time in watching sporting events is indicative that we really have too many people on this planet without anything to do.  And if this is true, I will have to admit that it is better to have them engaged in viewing a sporting event than burglarizing my car or garage simply because they have too much time on their hands and are bored.  Committing a burglary is exciting, but it does not have the full range of emotion an athletic contest gives.  It is not as satisfying in that regard.  So in conclusion, if you don't have anything better to do, watch a sporting contest and declare a favorite so that you can have a whole bunch of feelings.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Our Social Safety Net

 OUR SOCIAL SAFETY NET

Much conversation has occurred and is still occurring about a social safety net for the citizens of this country.  These conversations include such things as a minimum living wage being paid to every citizen, single payer medical coverage, raising the minimum wage, etc.  These conversations miss the fact that we already have a social safety net.

Our social safety net is jail; when people are unable to pay their fines, or their court costs, or fees to get their driver's licences returned, or probation fees, or restitution to Walmart, they go to jail.  All very simple.  I don't know how we have missed the obvious - - we already have a social safety net - - incarceration.  After all, once in jail, the state is responsible for food, bed, medical care and any other necessities of life.  One no longer needs to worry about such things as housing, day care, groceries, or any other of the necessities in modern America.  The "market" becomes irrelevant.

And if you are poor, or disabled, or simply unable to function in our modern world of capitalism, jail or prison is a very logical and appealing place to be.  No worries, just do as you are told as usual, and everything will be fine.  Three squares and a bed, TV and an occasional institutional job to keep you moving and the blood circulating.

One issue however, is that it may hurt the economy for the rest of us.  Our entire economy would collapse if people didn't buy thousands of dollars of stuff they didn't need.  Since one's income is significantly reduced in jail or prison, incarcerating all those who require the social safety net might very well reduce the total spending of our population resulting in even more need for the social safety net.  This appears to be a conundrum and one which I am unable to find a solution. The more people we put in prison, the more the rest of us have to spend on stuff we don't need to keep the GDP increasing at a steady rate.

In conclusion, we need to search for answers.  We apparently don't have any at the moment.  Our leaders, both state and federal, do not seem inclined to address the issues that face us.  Why is it that I am required to buy thousands of dollars of stuff I don't need?  Is it my responsibility to my fellow countrymen to buy stuff I don't need so everyone can have a job and earn money to buy more stuff no one needs?  When thinking about this whole situation, it really doesn't seem to make much sense.  Maybe jail isn't the answer after all, but fortunately we at least have that.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo 

In Defense of Crime

One must remember that crime and criminal are arbitrary classifications:  they are what the legislatures say they are.  One is not classified as a criminal unless one has been caught committing a crime.  Committing crimes undetected allows one to not be classified as a criminal:  you have to be caught to be a criminal.

If you are charged with a crime and the case is dismissed or you are acquitted at trial, you are still considered a criminal because the police arrested you and charged you with a crime; they certainly would not have done that if you hadn't both committed the crime and been stupid enough to be caught at it.  Sometimes one has to think that the actual classification as a criminal, the detention, and the jail time are by themselves enough to classify one as a criminal.  Courts, lawyers, trials, are really not relevant to whether a person is considered a criminal.

If one is arrested and taken to jail, one has been punished without any input from a judge or prosecutor or other person involved in what we call the criminal justice system.  You can't tell me that being taken to jail is not a punishment.  And if you can not make bond, and sit in jail for an extended period of time, you probably lose your job, your apartment, and more than likely your wife and kids who have been kicked out into the streets, or moved back in with her parents as the only place she has to go.

As a criminal defense attorney, my practice is, when first looking at a case, to determine one thing:  Can they prove you did it?  If it doesn't look like they can prove it, or their case is iffy at best, I say "Go to trial."  What do you have to lose?  The answer to that is nothing.   You have nothing to lose by going to trial.

I often say to my clients, or I should say in a form of a question, "Why do you want to make it easy for them to put you in jail or prison?"  "Why would you agree to plead guilty in return for a recommendation of probation, a probation you can't possibly make.  "Screw that--go to trial."  Defendants should realize that prosecutors are busy people; they have a lot of cases.  Trials are work; they really don't want to spend their time and energy preparing for trial and then actually trying a case which is stressful and uncertain.  That's not how they want to operate.

If every defendant on one court service day would say "I'm not pleading, I want to go to trial, the whole system would break down in one day; the system would implode; it couldn't handle it.  The only way that our "criminal justice system" functions is if 99% of the people charged with a crime plead guilty.  This is why we call it "the administration of justice".  Justice is being administered.  You are charged with a crime, the police will be supported by prosecuting every case they bring before the court and given to the prosecutors and there you have it.  There is not independent evaluation of whether you did the crime charged, or whether there is any proof that you did the crime charged, or that they will be able to find any of their witnesses needed to prove the charges.  Usually the witnesses hate the police as much as you do and don't want any part of a trial whether as defendant or witness,

I had two cases dismissed today.  In one case, the witnesses who we deposed couldn't identify the defendant which was necessary to prosecute the case.  The second case involved a victim from out-of-state who basically disappeared and would not respond to communications from the prosecutor.  Without a victim it was going to be very difficult to prosecute.  It may have been possible to put on a case with the witness, but not much sympathy would apply to the victim if he didn't show up and tell the jury his version of the events.  In both cases we had scheduled a trial and they would have gone to trial if the prosecutor had persisted.  I can't tell you if either defendant would have been acquitted, but it was likely.

Involuntary Servitude

Section 23 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Iowa reads as follows: "There shall be no slavery in this state; nor shall there be involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of crime." I am not sure of the distinction between slavery and involuntary servitude, but I expect a distinction existed at the time the Iowa constitution was written and adopted. What the founders of this state did not foresee was, everyone has become a criminal, and therefore, subject to involuntary servitude. This may seem an exaggeration but there is nothing illogical nor irrational about this statement. One can not go about one's business on any given day without committing a crime. Traffic violations are crimes. Without including traffic violations, the statement probably is an exaggeration; but the fact remains-a person is subject to involuntary servitude in this state as punishment for crime. Involuntary servitude may have meant the forced labor, imprisonment, or peonage of a person for the satisfaction of a debt. A criminal offense necessarily means a debt to the state in the form of court costs, fines, dare fees, law enforcement initiatives (whatever they may be), and repayment of court appointed attorney fees. We have managed to avert the literal interpretation of involuntary servitude by declaring that a person does not go to jail for failing to pay the state its due, the person goes to jail for failing to follow a court order. To those who go to jail, this is a distinction without a difference. It really doesn't matter whether a person goes to jail because he didn't pay or because he failed to do what he was told to do. Additionally the state will take the driver's license of those who do not pay. This was meant to ensure that everyone pays their fines, court costs, etc. It does not; it means that numerous people drive without licenses, ergo committing more crimes. Ironically as a few activities are no longer considered criminal such as mixed marriages and homosexuality, they are replaced by other activities. We now have hate crimes, violation of civil rights, theft of services, and numerous others. It seems we must have criminals and lots of them to make the rest of us feel good about ourselves. And yes we do have involuntary servitude--its call Prison Industries. True, most who work in and for prison industries, or are farmed out, would rather be working than sitting in a cell, but involuntary servitude it is. Because it is a preferable alternative does not exempt it from what it is.