Imagine trying to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 using the legislative techniques of 2009

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an impressive piece of legislation, but it would never pass today, certainly not in anything like the form in which it currently exists. Note: The actual Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which can be found here) is only 56 pages long (double spaced in 12 point Times Roman font). It contains clearly written provisions throughout its ten titles. For example, see the following language from Title II, SEC. 201.:

(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

But what would it have been like if present-day legislative techniques had been used by those attempting to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Most significantly, using modern strategies means that the proponents would be much more interested in passing legislation that sounded like it prevented discrimination, than passing legislation that actually prevented discrimination. Here are some specific differences. If the 2009 legislative techniques were being used back in 1964:

-The Civil Rights Act would have been thousands of pages long, so long that most legislators would not be well-versed regarding its terms.

-Key deliberations and debate regarding the Civil Rights Act would have been conducted entirely in secret.

-The Civil Rights Act would've been filled with terms that the citizens themselves would not understand the effect of the bill. If asked about the bill, most American citizens would say something like, "I think it has something to do with discrimination but I'm not quite sure what the new law allows or prohibits.

Continue ReadingImagine trying to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 using the legislative techniques of 2009

Will the federal government continue coddling AIG?

Fascinating Op-Ed in today's NYT, written by three former prosecutors (ELIOT SPITZER, FRANK PARTNOY and WILLIAM BLACK) who are demanding that AIG be forced to release voluminous emails in its possession that would allow the public to understand the economic meltdown that cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, including 180 billion dollars to AIG. I agree entirely. There is no reason for delay. It's time to turn AIG inside out, that much is clear. The only thing that is unclear is whether the politicians in Washington DC can muster up the courage to represent the taxpayers rather than the big banks. Here's an excerpt from the Op-Ed piece:

aig-emails

Continue ReadingWill the federal government continue coddling AIG?

Technical aspects of protesting and taxing Catholic Church position against gay marriage

In Early November, a Maine ballot measure defeated a law legalizing gay marriage. It is clear that the Catholic Church, acting through 45 dioceses around the country, contributed substantial money to defeat gay marriage in Maine. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the St. Louis Archdiocese contributed $10,000. cathedral-welcome-sign Here in St. Louis, protesters have made themselves visible in a way that would likely irritate many Catholics and (see the comments to this article). The protesters have repeatedly stationed themselves prominently in front of the St. Louis Cathedral before, during and after the noontime Mass, in order to protest the $10,000 payment by the St. Louis Diocese to defeat gay marriage in Maine. Some of the St. Louis protesters have claimed that they were harassed by the police. See the following video they published. I fully support gay marriage. And even though I don't believe in a Divine Jesus, I can't imagine Jesus, who purportedly opened up his heart to criminals and whores, taking active steps to keep gays from getting married. In my opinion, the Catholic Church, which has severely crippled its own moral authority, has acted out of bigotry in opposing gay marriage. On the other hand, I also think that the protesters need to be careful to pick their battles. If you click the title to go to the full post, you'll can view a gallery of a dozen photos I took while participating in the protest of 12-20-09, the day after I originally wrote this post. The temperature as a brisk 25 degrees. [more . . .]

Continue ReadingTechnical aspects of protesting and taxing Catholic Church position against gay marriage

Time for a national usury law?

First Premier Bank has just introduced its new 79% interest rate sub-prime credit card. No, that's not a typo, and some experts expect to see more credit cards with sky-high interest. Which makes me again bring up the topic of a national usury cap. Thomas Geoghegan recommended such a cap last year, in his article in The American Prospect. He suggested a credit card interest cap of 12% and a law completely barring payday loans.img_1180 I have filed several class action suits against large payday lenders (here's a post on one of those suits). These lenders often argue that people need these 400% interest loans for short term emergencies. At what cost, though? In my experience, these lenders are commonly stretching out these "short term" loans for many months. People who borrow $500 will pay $2000 in interest over the year and they will STILL OWE THE $500. Many states allow payday lenders to charge in excess of 1000% interest. These loans suck the very life out of working class folks. They amount to financial crack cocaine, because people often end up taking out a second, and a third payday loan in order to pay off the first one. It's a terrible mess and it's ruining lives. That's why 13 states have passed laws making sure that payday lenders cannot operate in those jurisdictions. It's time for the other states, and Congress, to get with the program. To put this all in perspective, remember the stories about "loan sharks?" Those were the good old days. "Simple nominal annual interest rates on extortionate mafia loan shark debts averaged 250%." Syndicate Loan-Shark Activities and New York's Usury Statute, 66 Colum. L. Rev. 167, 167 (1966). And here's another irony. The Bible clearly holds that usury is a sin comparable to murder. Usury is prohibited by Exodus 22:25: "If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.” Usury is also prohibited by Leviticus 25:35-37. In spite of these Bible quotes, if you want to find lots of payday stores and payday lenders, look for geographical areas where you'll also find conservative Christians. That is the finding of Steven M. Graves and Christopher Peterson, in a law review article entitled "Usury Law and the Christian Right: Faith-Based Political Power and the Geography of American Payday Loan Regulation," 57 Cath. U. L. Rev. 637, 640 (2008):

We conclude, with a high degree of statistical certainty, that states with powerful conservative Christian populations tend to host relatively greater numbers of payday loan locations per capita as well as a greater commercial density of payday lenders. These findings propound a tragic and sad irony. Those states that have most ardently held to their pious Christian traditions have tended to become more infested with the progeny of money changers once expelled by Christ from the Hebrew temple. Legislators in those states, who have effectively used biblical principles to shape their legislative agenda on social and cultural issues, have failed to consistently apply biblical principles to economic legislation.

All it would take for Congress to outlaw payday loans is to write up a bill, have a majority of members of Congress approve of it, and then refer it to the President to sign it. But that can't happen these days because the financial services industry pays our politicians huge amounts of money so that they WON'T sign these sorts of bills. And, of course, with regard to Congress, the banks "frankly own the place."

Continue ReadingTime for a national usury law?

Reminder that “struggle for existence” is a conceptual metaphor.

In the November, 2009 edition of Nature (available only to subscribers online) Daniel Todes has written an article entitled "Global Darwin: Contempt for Competition." Todes points out that although Darwin's idea of a "struggle for existence" made sense to his English peers, other biologists from other countries rejected this metaphor. Todes focuses on the alternative viewpoint embraced by many Russian biologists. In On the Origin of Species (1859), Darwin noted that "there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life. It is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms." Through this quote, Darwin recognized that he was using "struggle for existence" in a metaphorical sense. Darwin had been urged to adopt this metaphor by Russel Wallace, who feared that natural selection "seemed to personify a perceptive and forward thinking selector, or god." Todes holds that Darwin's metaphor was common sense to those "who were living on a crowded island with a capitalist economy and highly individualist culture." Russian biologists lived in a very different place, however, which led them to "reject Darwin's Malthusian metaphor." Russians did not tend to explore densely populated tropical environments. Rather, they tended to investigate "a vast underpopulated continental plain . . . it was largely empty Siberian expanse in which overpopulation was rare and only the struggle of organisms against a harsh environment was dramatic." Todes points out the Russian political system also contrasted sharply with that of Darwin's England. In Russia, capitalism was only weakly developed, and the social classes stressed cooperation rather than individual struggle, one against the other. In fact, many Russian political commentators "reviled Malthus as an apologist for predatory capitalism and the soulless individualism." This context for the Russian research led to (many successful) studies in which the focus was "mutual aid" more than "struggle for existence." [more . . . ]

Continue ReadingReminder that “struggle for existence” is a conceptual metaphor.