Supreme Court Throws Out Conviction in Sixth Trial

I'm reading the Supreme Court decision for Flowers v. Mississippi, and it is as if everyone is trying their damnedest to rule out blatant racism. But it is clear that District Attorney Doug Evans should be disbarred for that alone. How many cases were settled by guilty plea agreements simply because defendants knew there was no way to get a fair trial? How many innocent defendants were railroaded by Evans?

Additionally, there was considerable prosecutorial misconduct not related to jury selection. It's as if Evans was daring a higher court to overturn his convictions and did not care whether a trial was fair. But if he was trying to put a murderer in prison, clearly his methods were not in the public interest. The prosecutor's victories were tainted beyond redemption.

Two hung juries and four overturned verdicts. 20 years in prison for Flowers without a valid conviction of guilt. If Evans is the prosecutor for a seventh trial(!), how can a defense attorney look himself in the mirror if he does not demand a change of venue? How could a judge refuse? 

Since Evans has been allowed without restriction to continue his practice of prosecutorial misconduct as well as to continue his blatant racist behavior, clearly his nest of enablers also need to be dealt with. But it's Mississippi. That would be as likely as if the Supreme Court were to decide to reinstate the portions of the Voting Rights Act that they threw out because it was no longer needed in our "post-racial" society.

Background

Curtis Flowers was convicted primarily on the basis of one particle of gunshot residue on his right hand, along with "jailhouse confessions." One of Flowers' cellmates said he was placed with Flowers to get a confession. When he was unable to, he said that a statement was constructed by the Sheriff and by District Attorney Doug Evans. Testimonies from two of Flowers' cellmates about his confession were later recanted with claims that their testimonies in the first trial were coerced with promises of freedom and with threats. Their testimonies were not used in subsequent trials.
Other than that one particle, there was no direct evidence tying Flowers to the murders. One piece of indirect evidence was a bullet, found in a mattress, from a .380 caliber pistol. Flowers' uncle said his own .380 caliber gun was stolen the morning of the murders. The mattress bullet was visually identified (a subjective science) as being the same as bullets extracted from a post in Flowers' uncle's mother's back yard. The murder weapon was never found. There were also people claiming to have seen Flowers near the garment factory where the uncle's gun had been stolen. Some of those people were not interviewed until eight or nine months after the murders, and there were problems with other witness stories. Prosecutorial misconduct, blatant racism in jury select, two mistrials and four overturned verdicts. And one particle of gunshot residue.

Huffington Post Article: Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction In Curtis Flowers Case

Clarion-Ledger (Jackson Mississippi) article: Recanted testimony, subjective science helps put Curtis Flowers on death row Link to IMDB summary of an episode of Wrong Man series: "Curtis Flowers: Trial and Error"

Yet Another Rant About Social Security Reform (and AARP)

I refused to join AARP because they supported Social Security "reform". Social Security is separate from the federal budget and has its own revenue stream. (Politicians lump their budgets with Social Security figures because those decades of surpluses made their numbers look better.)

Changes to retirement ages or benefits will only change the date that the Trust Fund zeros out in 2035, after which without changes only 80% of benefits could be paid through 2094. Simple adjustments to the payroll tax rate, which used to be routine, would have ensured 75-year solvency.

The Trust Fund has $2.89 trillion in interest-bearing US Treasury Bonds--those pesky paper IOUs backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. (Grandma and the Chinese trust those bonds. Are we stealing from them?) The Trust Fund is so large because--guess what?--baby-boomer retirements were planned for! Shocking, I know.

The GOP does not make money on Social Security - that is why they are ideologically opposed and why they tell all those lies about SocSec (going broke, running deficits, in the red, insolvent, federal budget's biggest expense, etc.). The financial sector wants our retirement money to play with and to get their 20% overhead. That is what privatization is all about. But it's our money! Nope. Social Security is retirement and disability insurance; it is not a savings plan.

Sure, let's raise retirement ages and cut benefits. It won't change the federal budget or the National Debt by one dime. Self-funded. Separate by law. Reform? Oh, gosh, yes, we will start to see the effects of reform in 16 years.

Note also that a decrease in benefits would result in more senior poverty and a concomitant increase in assistance by taxpayers. And it would reduce beneficiaries' consumer spending, so our economy takes a hit. The wealthy don't care if they have to pay into Social Security; their contribution in payroll taxes for Social Security is capped at $15,921.60. Only the first $128,400 in income is subject to payroll taxes. Payroll taxes on the wealthy are not why they don't like Social Security. It's because it is non-profit.

Social Security will always be there. Unless politicians take it away from us.

Of course, people are still free to buy stocks, etc. Just beware of the Bernie Madoffs stealing your retirement savings. Or stock market crashes. Or your broker buying and selling stocks to get sales commissions until there is no money left (churning). Or your financial advisor or manager taking all your money and going to live in the Bahamas. Trump even signed an Executive Order that canceled the requirement that financial advisors act in your best interests. Enron imploded because of fraud, and employee stocks (part of their pay) suddenly became worthless.

And how about if your monthly pension benefits are cut to less than half because Romney bought the company you worked for and sold off the pension for cash. Romney also took most of the cash from companies, sold some assets, and then saddled those companies with the cost of their own purchase. All nice and legal if the company can last another two years. That is how the 2012 Republican presidential candidate made his money.

Being A Conservative

Principles of Conservatism

You don't like government regulations or taxes? You call yourself a conservative. So you want to eliminate worker protections, discrimination protections, environmental protections, and free K-12 education. You want bigger banks, bigger tax cuts for the rich (including dropping capital gains taxes to zero), no financial or consumer safeguards, no Pell grants or free college for students. You want there to be no minimum wage, even though a worker getting assistance is essentially a company on welfare.

You are okay with no heating assistance for the poor, no Head Start for preschoolers, no community block grants, no infrastructure spending bills, no healthcare insurance assistance, no insurance protections, but yes to a budget increase for our ridiculously massive military. No libraries or public roads or bridges or dams or well-funded public schools. You have no problem with companies stiffing contractors and employees and defrauding students. Let the buyer beware.

Your Second Amendment

No one is advocating the seizure of all guns. But background checks, restrictions on weapons of mass murder, gun safety features, closing gun sale loopholes, mandatory safety training--these all equate in your mind to jack-booted thugs invading your home and taking away all of your weapons. To you, the Second Amendment is truncated, with that pesky militia clause removed. Never mind states' National Guards; to you, one drunk with a machine gun is a militia.

Conservatives and Business

No penalties or restrictions on unsavory business practices because somehow in a nation of over 300 million people the free market will do the job of regulating business and weeding out predatory companies (the sophomoric philosophy of Ayn Rand). Even though consumers have next to no information on companies' practices and operations and financial shenanigans. Basically, you want freedom from ethics, oversight, responsibility, justice, fairness, and equality.

Conservatives on Justice

You are okay with collection agencies taking people to court where a judge can legally charge a debtor with Contempt of Court and throw their butt into jail. That's not a debtor's prison, right? You are okay with one set of rules for the wealthy and another for poorer people; that's okay where justice is concerned, right? Oh, and an even less favorable standard of justice for people of color. Assuming, of course, that they even survive to see a courtroom.

Conservatives and Elections

You see no problem with removing 329 voting machines in a minority district, leaving just one. Gerrymandering so that a 49% Republican constituency results in a two-thirds majority in state legislative houses; that's just protecting against socialism and communism, right? Paid your debt to society? Great! Just don't try to vote. Got a Hispanic name? Step right up and cast a provisional ballot, cause your name has been removed from voter registration rolls; just come back during business hours to a courthouse near (or not so near) you to prove your vote should count. After the election, of course. Your opponent had 3 million more votes than you? Just claim that there were 3 million instances of in-person voter fraud, an occurrence so rare that, in 10 previous years out of one billion votes cast in recent elections, there were only a handful of cases.

Conservatives and Social Security

You think we should unleash the free market on Social Security? You are okay with financial advisors no longer (by executive order) having a fiduciary responsibility for people's retirements. You're okay with retirements being vulnerable to stock market crashes, theft, bankruptcies, and fraud (hint: Bernie Madoff, Enron).

You think you can balance the federal budget by cutting Social Security benefits and increasing the retirement age, even though Social Security is self-funded and is separate by law? Even though the only effect cutting benefits or raising the retirement age would have is to slightly alter the date that the Trust Fund zeroes out (currently 15 years from now).

Social Security is not the Federal government's biggest expense. It is not an expense at all. Social Security is not going broke. There is almost $3 trillion in the Trust Fund in the form of interest-bearing U.S. Treasury Bonds. The Trust Fund was designed to handle baby boomer retirements, and deficits in revenues were planned, just as the surpluses were.

You think that Social Security is massive wealth redistribution and a socialist scheme even if only $28,000 is taken out of someone's $1 million in income. After all, it's their money.

You want Social Security Disability? Well, first you will have to get coverage through your state's disability program with its $203 cash per month and $200 food benefit per month (Minnesota figures), for a grand total of $403 per month to live on until in 18 to 24 months your Social Security Disability application is approved. Yeah, people say it's really easy to do that. Oh, and the Republican Congress keeps cutting the payments for administrative expenses (an overhead of less than 2%), so your Social Security offices are understaffed and under-equipped.

We're sorry that the politicians liked lumping together budgets and Social Security figures, even though they are completely separate. But those surpluses sure made things look good, didn't they? No, Congress did not steal from Social Security. Not unless you think that the bonds sold to grandmothers and the Chinese government also constituted theft.

Conservatives and Healthcare

You think that the ACA was a socialist takeover of health care. Even though it is a Republican free-market insurance plan with 170 changes that Republicans demanded including the elimination of a public option. Even though not one hospital, clinic, pharmacy, lab, drug manufacturer, or medical equipment company has been taken over by the government (nationalized).

You want to go back to insuring only healthy people. You are okay with a pharmaceutical drug that was developed with government funds having its price raised by 5000%. You are okay with Medicare being unable to negotiate drug prices. You have no problem with high premiums, co-pays, deductibles, limits,  and restrictions. No problem with unaffordable health care. It's no problem that access to health care at the cost of financial catastrophe is not realistic access.

People should not have to fight insurance companies for coverage that they were promised? Too bad, that's experimental. No, we don't cover those procedures. Sorry, we routinely deny expensive medical care and will not pay until and unless you go through our appeals process. No, you are no longer insured because you lied on your health history when you did not reveal that you had acne as a teenager, even though it was outside of the 10-year history we asked for.

Sorry, your income is too low to qualify for coverage through the ACA. We're sorry (not really) that you don't qualify for your state's Medicaid because your income is too high.

Do you also think that poor people are lazy and that their circumstances are the result of poor choices? Just like sick people have only themselves to blame? So you think that the poor and sick are moochers and are less worthy and the wealthy should not have to shell out their hard-earned money to help them. And why are you opposed to assistance? Because it would encourage dependency and deprive people of the opportunity to have self-esteem that working (even if you can't or are retired) provides.

Conservatives and Wealth

Does your notion of fairness encompass the ever-increasing flow of wealth to the top .1% at the expense of the people who actually do the work that enables profits and investment returns? The same people who may not want to or are unable to be company executives or financial managers or investors. People who are not more interested in wealth than in pursuing work that they find fulfilling. People who don't want their job overshadowing or interfering with family life. And you think that people who send their money to work should be taxed less than people who work. That a rich man's money is worth more than the sweat of a worker. How conservative.

Conservatives and Morality

You don't want corporations being regulated but you're fine with policing people's behavior and enforcing your notions of morality on others. If you don't like gay marriage, here's a tip. Don't marry someone who is the same sex as you.

You think the GOP is the party of fiscal conservatism even though they want to drown the federal government in a bathtub and are starving it to have an excuse for cutting programs. You think the rich need tax relief. And you think greed is a virtue.

Conservatives and Religion

You think we are a Christian nation even though the founding fathers specifically kept religion out of The Constitution. They were familiar with the Church of England and the perils of a state religion. The founding fathers did not even practice the same religions. Yet, with historical revisionism, conservatives are fine with making laws concerning religion. But if you want a church to be tax-exempt, shouldn't it be based on its status as a charitable organization, not because of the approval of politicians and tax officials for a religion they decided is legitimate?

Conclusions

So, you are a conservative? Feels intellectually satisfying, doesn't it? No namby-pamby feel-good bleeding-heart sympathy from you. Just an honest philosophy with no legislating based on feeling sorry for people. No, ours is a merit-based society with no consideration given for family wealth or connections or educational opportunities or good health or fine neighborhoods, or political influence or money to lobby for laws favoring successful capitalists. Work hard and you will be successful. A just society with the freedom to be your own master.

Unless, of course, you are sick or prefer manual labor or can't afford good schools or are a person of color or a victim of a natural disaster or can't afford health care or are scammed out of your savings with promises of a good job. But that's just business, right? Not your fault that you don't pay a living wage, or that you don't support a health care system that does not depend on an employer having to pay for your full-time-work-only insurance, or that jobs are sent overseas where the standards are lax and labor is cheap. Sure, you believe Climate Change is a hoax that scientists are banned from even mentioning, but don't worry because it won't affect you if it turns out to be real. And it snowed last week, so that proves it's not true because there is no difference between weather and climate, right?

Isn't conservatism wonderful?

Harriet Tubman and the Sabotaging of the New $20 Bill

Maybe arguments condoning the delays of the new $20 bill would have a shred of validity if Mnuchin's claims had any truth. What he is saying is that the security enhancements for the $20 will be different than those that will be used for the $10 and $50. Why would less counterfeited bills have a higher priority for security upgrades? Practice?

The introduction of the new $20 bill was planned for the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote. Hint: That was one reason a woman was going to be featured on the new $20.

Mnuchin claimed that there was much more work to do on the artwork and design of the new $20, which turned out to be just BS. At one point he said that not even a portrait had been decided on. Yet everything was already planned, designed, and on track for the 2020 rollout.

Don't give us BS about political correctness and how Jackson was a war hero. To many, he was a genocidal racist and it is long past time to acknowledge our history. We know why Trump and Mnuchin are delaying the rollout, and their past and present words and actions speak loudly and clearly as to what those reasons are.

HuffPost: Harriet Tubman $20 Bill Leaked Weeks After Trump Administration Delayed Release

Welcome to America. Give Us Your Firstborn.

Ah, hah. You entered this country illegally. So, you were working and providing for your child. And immigration officers took your child away from you over your objections when they arrested you. You were not provided a translator. You objected to their efforts to put your child up for adoption.

Therefore our courts find that you abandoned your child; he will now be given away permanently. No, no-one cares that you cannot understand what the judge is saying in the closed-door hearing.

Illegal immigration must be punished by taking your first-born child and raising him to worship our government. As it was in the days of Moses and Egypt and the pharaohs, so shall it be in our enlightened democracy. Just be glad we are only killing some of the children of illegals.

Welcome to America. Now, go home.

ABC News Story (7/18/2012): Immigrant Mom Loses Effort to Regain Son Given to US Parents