Assorted sordid thoughts about the big new casino in town.

I decided to take a walk this afternoon, an exercise break from a work routine which too often requires that I be hovered over a keyboard and phone. On a lark, I headed toward the northeast corner of downtown St. Louis to check out a well-promoted "Burger Bar," which happens to be located in the largest casino in St. Louis, the Lumiere. Everyone in St. Louis knows about the Lumiere Casino thanks to its huge electronic sign right in front, only a few feet from busy Interstate 70. On that huge video screen, you can often see pictures of buxom women beckoning you to have fun at the casino. Some of them are showing you to your room, showing you the bed on which you may sleep once you have been relieved of your money downstairs. I've often wondered how many accidents have been caused on Highway 70 by people who were watching the gorgeous women instead of watching where they were driving. Image by Erich Vieth I'd never been inside the Lumiere Casino until today. I wasn't prepared for what I saw: slot machines and other gambling stations as far as my eye could see. The muscle-bound greeter (or was he a bouncer?) told me that there are 2,000 gambling machines and 80 gambling tables on the 75,000 square foot floor. The Lumiere, which has only been open for a couple of years in St. Louis, is quite a step up from the smaller casinos previously serving St. Louis area gamblers. This is definitely a major league casino. As I stood there, transfixed by the thousands of blinking lights decorating the thousands of slot machines, the Greeter told me that business has been good, even in these difficult economic times. With a stiff smile, he advised me to come by if I had any further questions, and to otherwise go have a good time.

Continue ReadingAssorted sordid thoughts about the big new casino in town.

Bank Regulator William K. Black: The best way to rob a bank is to own one.

I’ve often had the thought that our massive meltdown could be figured out if we could only recruit some intelligent and well-motivated people to gather and analyze the evidence. But who would those people be? Who could serve as the template the type of character we seek out in such people? Too bad we don't have 1,000 people like William K. Black. Black is the former senior regulator who cracked down on financial institutions during the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, pointing fingers at five congressmen including John McCain. Black went about his work with such vigor that he even drew a death threat from Charles Keating. Have you ever gotten excited listening to anyone talking about the economy? In this breath-taking interview with Bill Moyers, Black offers his own carefully studied analysis regarding the "bailout." This is not the intentionally abstruse financial jargon that you usually hear when pundits discuss the meltdown. The theme of the Black’s interview is this: "The best way to rob a bank is to own one," which is also the title to a book he wrote in 2005. Black teaches economics and law at the University of Missouri — Kansas City (UMKC). He was the Executive Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention from 2005-2007. This video is required viewing for anyone who is convinced that we are not getting the straight scoop from the corporate media or from our government.

Continue ReadingBank Regulator William K. Black: The best way to rob a bank is to own one.

Casual Mistaken Arrest

A friend has recently blogged about her experience being informally arrested and handcuffed around the corner from her apartment in the afternoon. She was going for a walk, and police pulled up, told her they had a warrant, handcuffed her, and then began checking her identity. She certainly wasn't who they were looking for, nor did the incident last a long time. I think that her peaceful Zen attitude, presumably nun-induced, kept it from being an experience worth suing about.

Continue ReadingCasual Mistaken Arrest

Varnum vs Brien: the abridged version of the Iowa Supreme Court Opinion upholding gay marriage

What follows is an abridged version of the Iowa Supreme Court Opinion upholding gay marriage: KATHERINE VARNUM vs. TIMOTHY J. BRIEN, Polk County Recorder. Decision date: April 3, 2009. Who would have thought that the next state to recognize gay rights was going to be Iowa? Right out here in the heartland, neighbor of Missouri, where I live? Many these states in the Midwest have taken pains to amend their laws to forbid gay marriage. I am highly impressed by the Court’s ruling and opinion in the case of Varnum vs. Brien, the Iowa Supreme Court Opinion upholding gay marriage (here’s the full text of the opinion). Here’s Des Moines Register’s brief description of the holding. It is an extraordinary opinion, extremely well-written and well-reasoned. It is extraordinary for both the legal analysis and for the emotional and social insights expressed by the court. This Court really gets what is at stake in this case, and did hide from any of the arguments asserted by the County. It’s amazing what happens when you carefully lay out all of the arguments for the world to see, and I do believe that the Court covered all of the arguments expressed by those who are opposed to gay marriage, even a big argument that the anti-gay-marriage forces didn’t have the courage to raise in the courts (religious objections). Because the Court took the time to carefully lay out all of those anti-gay-marriage arguments, we can all see how empty and paranoid they sound in the abstract. When we see the anti-gay-marriage arguments calmly on paper, without the angry faces and the megaphones, we see them as the specious arguments they truly are. Today, I took the time to read the entire 70-page opinion by the Iowa Supreme Court. It occurred to me, though, that many people (especially non-lawyers) might not want to work their way through the entire opinion. Therefore, I have created this “abridged” version, preserving the significant points, but redacting the citations and technical points. This actual words of the Court’s opinion are truly worth your while. Don’t settle for the simplified news media stories on this decision. This court’s opinion is professional and inspirational. In it’s thoroughness and directness regarding a tumultuous subject, it reminds me of the Pennsylvania decision of Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., (full decision of the Dover decision here). In this legal decision, the Iowa Supreme Court takes the long view of history, as you can see at page 16, where the Court points out that it prohibited slavery more than 15 years before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rights of slave-owners in the Dred Scott case. This discussion is on the mark, given that any legislation curtailing the rights of gays is based on bigotry. The Court has a long analysis ready for those who would argue that homosexuality is a choice, starting around page 41 in the “immutability” section. The also Court slams the concept of "civil union" as a second rate version of marriage (for example, see page 9). What was at stake in this case was Iowa Code section 595.2(1), which ostensibly provides:

“[o]nly a marriage between a male and a female is valid.”

The Court considered a mountain of evidence and reviewed dozens of amicus briefs (briefs from interested individuals and organizations who are not direct parties) before rendering its opinion.

Continue ReadingVarnum vs Brien: the abridged version of the Iowa Supreme Court Opinion upholding gay marriage

Iowa becomes the third state to allow gay marriage

Based on a unanimous ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court, Iowa has become the third state in the nation to allow gay marriage (joining Connecticut and Massachusetts). The following excerpt is from the Desmoine Register:

Iowa’s gay marriage ban “is unconstitutional, because the county has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage,” Cady wrote in the 69-page opinion that seemed to dismiss the concept of civil unions as an option for gay couples.

“A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution,” Cady wrote.

The ruling, however, also addressed what it called the “religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate,” and said judges must remain outside the fray. . .

“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them,” the opinion says.

The ruling explicitly does not affect “the freedom of a religious organization to define marriage it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman,” the justices stressed.

Although I haven't yet read the opinion, it sounds like the Justices are pointing to a common-sense compromise to the gay marriage dispute: The civil ceremony applies to any two people and the state must not discriminate as to sex by requiring those two people to be of the opposite sex. The state-sanctioned marriage will endow all couples equally with all of the legal benefits of marriage. On the other hand, religions are free to define marriage as they would like. A conservative church would be free to reject an application to marry same sex couples. I think that this is the best way to approach the national divide. If your religion is really important to you, go ahead and let your religion (not your government) define marriage. In the meantime, don't try to deny government benefits to others based upon sex differences. When I read the opinion, I'm interested in knowing how the Court found discrimination. After all, the traditional government definition is not anti-woman or anti-man. In a sense, it's even-handed. From the perspective of any gay person seeking to be married, though, that definition trods on what I would agree to be fundamental liberties such as the right to associate. After I review the opinion, I'll add a comment.

Continue ReadingIowa becomes the third state to allow gay marriage