|
BEFORE
THE GLASS CEILING: HARD FLOORS
PROGRESS REPORT A report
released this week by the Center for American Progress Action
Fund and Women's Voices. Women Vote details the difficulties
single women face in today's economy. Forty percent make under
$30,000 a year, less than married people or single men. Of 12.2
million single-parent households in the United States, more than
10 million are headed by single women.
Single women still suffer
unequal pay. They make only 56 cents to the married man's dollar.
Overall, women's median wages pay only 77 cents for every dollar
men earn. Even after last year's minimum wage raise -- the first
in a decade -- an employee working 40 hours a week at minimum
wage only earns $15,080, barely above the poverty line for a
family of two ($14,000) and under the poverty line for a family
of three ($17,600).
Improving access to higher
education will also help single women close the wage gap; currently,
84 percent of single mothers do not have a college degree. Just
yesterday, the Washington Post reported that nearly 50 student
lenders -- 12 percent of the market -- "have stopped issuing
federally guaranteed loans in recent weeks because of paralysis
in the credit markets," making it harder for single women
to afford college.
With over 35 percent of
children born to single women in 2005, single women have a large
stake in their children's future. The average cost of child care
can range anywhere between $3,000 and $13,000 a year per child
-- an enormous burden for struggling single women. The United
States and Australia are the only industrialized countries that
don't require employers to offer paid maternity leave for new
mothers, though some states. The housing crisis has a disproportionate
effect on single women as well, as they are more likely to be
subprime borrowers. They also spend proportionally more on housing
than single men. "Unmarried women need a president who will
make affordable housing a priority." Finally, "More
than a third -- 35 percent -- of unmarried women are over the
age of 50 and face retirement on their own rather than with combined
savings with a spouse," and older, single women are one
of the poorest demographic groups in the United States.
Health coverage is a particularly
important issue for women. Four in 10 women have a chronic condition
that requires ongoing medical care -- a significantly higher
rate of chronic illness than men experience. At the same time,
approximately 20 percent of single women have no health coverage
at all.
ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF VOTING
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
Proportional representation
means that political parties or like-minded constituencies win
representation in proportion to their voting strength. If a political
party wins 10% of the popular vote they win 10 percent of the
legislative seats, 40% of the vote wins 40% of the seats and
so forth.
PR opens up the system
to all sorts of people who can't win representation now, including
women (only 12 percent in the U.S. House), racial minorities,
political minorities, Democrats living in Republican districts,
Republicans living in Democratic districts, etc..
PR is used by most of the
established democracies in the world, because it gives voters
more choices at the polls, allows more voters to vote for winners,
and dramatically increases voter turnout to 70-95% of eligible
voters U.S. voter turnout for 1996 congressional elections was
44% of eligible voters. The US currently has the lowest voter
turnout of any established democracy and other countries using
winner-take-all systems also suffer from low turnout. One reason
is that voters have very little choice since most races are so
non-competitive, hence many voters vote for losers. It is hard
to go to the polls if you don't feel your vote counts.
PR has a positive impact
on campaign finance. Because candidates need less votes to win,
they don't have to spend as much money to win those votes. Also,
because PR elects representatives from multi-seat districts,
there aren't any head-to-head battles that so often intensify
the need for money. Candidates also can run together in slates
and pool their resources.
In the U.S., voters are
often stuck with choosing between the "lesser of two evils,"
instead of voting for who they truly like. Voters have to vote
"against" their fears, instead of "for" their
hopes. This dynamic, of always voting "against" something
instead of "for" something, has a very debilitating
effect on the voter's enthusiasm.
Every 10 years, the incumbent
politicians and their parties gerrymander the districts to ensure
"safe" seats. Eighty percent of U.S. and California
congressional seats in 1996 were "safe." Over one third
of state legislative races weren't even contested by one of the
major parties. This reduces competition and increases the sense
that voting doesn't count; quite literally, in redistricting
politicians pick the voters before the voters pick them.
With PR there are no districts
to gerrymander, voters have more choices at the polls, and more
voters will cast a vote for a winner. voters can listen to a
range of political perspectives and policy options, and vote
for the candidate or party that best represents how they feel.
Voters can vote for their hopes, instead of their fears.
The trend in the world
is toward proportional systems and away from "winner take
all". In recent years, the countries of South Africa, New
Zealand, Scotland, Wales, Japan, Russia and Mexico have all adopted
some form of PR. All the countries of the former Communist bloc
adopted PR instead of "winner take all". The United
Kingdom, the grandmother of "winner take all" democracies,
recently adopted PR for elections to the European Parliament,
to the London city council, adopted Instant Runoff Voting for
the London mayoral election, and may have a national referendum
soon on adopting PR.
PR played an important
role in New York City until the elite got concerned that too
many blacks, communists, and other troublemakers were getting
elected. PR was the outgrowth of a charter commission launched
by the reform mayor, Fiorello LaGuardia. Among the beneficiaries
was Adam Clayton Powell who won a seat on the city council. Writes
Dan Prosterman: "Between 1936 and 1947, the New York press
turned a concerted about face with regard to PR. In the 1930s,
city newspapers supported PR as a method of combating corruption
in local government. A diverse group of papers, including the
New York Times, Daily News, Herald-Tribune, Brooklyn Eagle, and
the Communist Party-run Daily Worker, supported the 1936 PR referendum.
Muffled cries against PR as "confusing" or "expensive"
swelled into outrage with the election of Communists in 1941
and 1943. Many editorials decried PR as a subversive threat to
American democracy. By the repeal referendum of 1947, nearly
all of the city's press vehemently opposed PR."
The story of Cincinnati
is instructive. Theodore Berry, a black member of the Cincinnati
city council won election in 1953 under proportional representation.
Because he was the highest vote-getter among councilmembers,
by local tradition he should have become mayor but his election
was blocked. In 1957, opponents of Berry convinced the city to
do away with PR entirely. Berry was finally elected mayor under
a conventional voting system in the 1970s, more than a decade
after a major American city could have had its first black mayor.
Similar resistance has
cropped up in New Zealand. New Zealand voted by a 70% margin
in an advisory election to adopt the German system of mixed PR.
This plan was initially opposed by the government, but after
the election the prime minister said he would not block a final
referendum on the matter. Later, however, he announced that a
vote for the new system would be linked to a highly controversial
plan for public financing of campaigns, thus lowering chances
of final approval.
Any campaign for electoral
reform can expect to be met by similar machinations. Yet the
effort must be made if the varied voices of America are to be
heard. Advocates of change repeatedly go down the futile path
of attempting to win under existing rules, with surprisingly
little effort directed at changing the rules.
HOW PR & ALTERNATIVE
VOTING SYSTEMS WORK
There are many different
types of PR, and because it is flexible it may be adapted to
the situation of any city, state or nation. Here are a few of
the most common varieties:
List System -- the most widely used form of
PR. The voter selects one party and its pre-determined slate
of candidates to represent them. Party slates can be either "closed"
or "open," the latter allowing voters to indicate a
preference for individual candidates, the former decided by the
party. If a party receives 30% of the vote, they receive 30%
of the seats in the legislature, 10% of the vote receives 10%
of the seats, and so on. A minimum share of the votes may be
required to earn representation-- typically 5%. This type of
PR is ideal for large legislatures on state and national levels.
Mixed Member -- This German hybrid elects half
the legislature from single-seat, winner-take-all districts and
the other half by the list system. Those elected under the list
system are seated in a such a way that the whole legislature
reflects the proportion of the votes received in the list ballot.
Choice -- Allows constituencies of like-minded
voters to win representation in proportion to their voting strength.
The voter ranks candidates in an order of preference (1,2,3,4,
etc.) Once a voter's first choice is elected or eliminated, excess
votes are "transferred" to next choices until all positions
are filled. Voters can vote for their favorite candidate(s),
knowing that if that candidate doesn't receive enough votes their
vote will "transfer" to their next choice. With choice
voting, every vote counts and very few votes are wasted. Choice
voting is ideal for non-partisan elections.
Preference or Instant
Runoff Voting --
Ideal when selecting a single winner such as president, mayor,
governor or district representative who must win a majority.
Like choice voting, the voter simply ranks candidates in an order
of preference (ex. 1. Nader 2. Perot 3. Clinton). The candidate
with the least number of first place votes is eliminated, and
their votes are "transferred" to their 2nd choice,
3rd choice and so on, until a candidate has a majority. It's
like doing a traditional runoff, but doing it all in one election.
Most U.S. elections are
held under plurality voting rules in which the candidate with
the most votes wins. If three or more candidates run in the race,
then the winner can have less than a majority of the vote. But
the question always arises: was that winning candidate really
preferred by most voters?
-- The instant runoff ensures
the election of the candidate preferred by most voters.
-- It eliminates the problem
of spoiler candidates knocking off major candidates.
-- It frees communities
of voters from splitting their vote among their own candidates.
-- It promotes coalition-building
and more positive campaigning
Approval voting: Under this system, used by a
few professional associations, but as yet untested in a major
political context, voters get to check off every candidate of
whom they approve, but not in order of preference. Advocates
claim this produces a fairer result, although there is the practical
question of whether voters wouldn't rather rank the candidates.
Multi-seat elections Here are the major choices for multi-seat
elections: District and at-large elections: These typically American
forms of election are responsible for many of the least appealing
aspects of US politics. The main virture of district voting is
that the district has someone with power at the seat of government.
But it also leads to gerrymandering, minority disenfranchisement
and intensely parochial decisions on the part of legislators.
The typical legislator spends more time fixing problems for consituents
than acting as a legislator. At-large elections, in which the
voter has as many choices as there are seats available, leads
to the majority of a community magnifying its power to the exclusion
of minorities, and has been subject to successful assault in
the courts on civil rights grounds.
Single Transferable
Vote: This is essentially
the principle of preferential voting applied to a multi-member
body. Voters rank the candidates and those surpassing a mathematically
derived quota are considered elected. To determine the other
victors, the choices of the least successful candidate are distributed
to the other candidates. This is the system used for years in
Cambridge, MA, and in Ireland.
RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE & COMMUNITY COURTS
HELEN W. GUNNARSSON, ILLINOIS BAR JOURNAL "The United States incarcerates
more people than any country in the world," said the Pew
Center on the States, in a report released February 28. . . Even
more disturbing than these numbers is the report's conclusion:
all that money, and all of those nonproductive person-hours in
jail cells, are doing nothing to reduce the crime rate. Instead,
the authors say, throwing people in jail is simply "saddling
cash-strapped states with soaring costs they can ill afford and
failing to have a clear impact either on recidivism or overall
crime."
Given this dismal conclusion,
interest in alternatives to traditional prosecutions and incarceration
is understandably increasing. The Pew Center report cites diversion
programs for nonviolent offenders with drug addictions or mental
illnesses, also known as specialty courts, therapeutic courts,
or problem-solving courts, as among the promising alternatives
to jail time for Treating the underlying cause. . .
in 1993, [Greg Berman,
director of the Center for Court Innovation] said, a community
court was created in Manhattan to address quality of life crimes
such as prostitution, drug possession, and vandalism. Instead
of jailing nonviolent offenders, the court worked with community
organizations to require restitution of the offenders.
Simultaneously, Berman
said, the court used its resources to link the offenders with
services such as drug treatment, mental health treatment, job
training, and counseling in the hopes that in addressing offenders'
underlying problems, they would curb recidivism. Statistics showed
that these problem-solving courts were highly successful in achieving
compliance with their orders, improving local perceptions of
the justice system, and reducing recidivism, Berman said.
Today, there are thousands
of problem-solving courts in the country. Most, if not all, are
part of state criminal court systems, including community courts,
drug courts, mental health courts, and domestic violence courts.
. .
The Illinois Association
for Drug Court Professionals lists 26 counties in Illinois with
drug courts. Cook County has multiple sites with drug courts.
. . Peoria County State's Attorney Kevin Lyons reports that he
is participating in the planning stages for a mental health court
in his county, which also boasts a domestic violence court. And
Tazewell County began a pretrial diversion program through its
state's attorney's office in 1974, long before the term "therapeutic
jurisprudence" was coined. . .
Lake County's drug court
and one-year-old mental health court, officially known as Therapeutic
Intensive Monitoring court, provide a good illustration of how
specialty courts work. . .
Team members meet every
week to review the files of the TIM or drug court subjects, and
all share information and ideas to craft appropriate, individualized
treatment plans for each subject. Additionally, participants
receive the benefit of services from outside professionals who
may include the county jail doctor, a private therapist or counselor,
a psychiatrist or psychologist, a job placement counselor, and/or
a linkage worker who helps subjects find and participate in other
community programs to meet their needs. . .
Offenders must . . . be
amenable to treatment in order to be accepted into TIM or drug
court. "Someone who denies a need for treatment, says she
won't take her meds, or doesn't want to be labeled" won't
want to be in TIM court - nor would she be accepted into the
program, says Bishop. "Acceptance of responsibility is an
element of participation in the program. Denial won't work.".
. .
TIM or drug court subjects
spend far more time in court than do offenders in traditional
criminal courts. Initially, they're required to appear every
week in court. As they show that they can comply with the specialty
court team's requirements, the time between court appearances
lengthens, first to every other week, then once a month. . .
Participants who violate
the specialty court's orders or restrictions suffer consequences
that are agreed on by the court team. Says Fabbri, "Violations
are usually addressed incrementally." Someone may spend
a weekend in jail, for example, he says. "Consequences will
be a lot swifter and more severe than regular probation violations.
These people are on our radar screen more and see the judge more.".
. .
Mark Kammerer, a psychotherapist
by training who's director of treatment programs for the Narcotics
Prosecutions Bureau of the Cook County State's Attorney, confirms
. . . hopes for specialty court graduates. In a memo . . . Kammerer
cites encouraging statistics for Cook County's drug court graduates.
Kammerer first compared
the criminal activity of the 443 drug court graduates . . . in
the year prior to entering drug court to the year following graduation
and found that felony arrests decreased by 92 percent, total
arrests decreased by 83 percent, and 87 percent had no felony
arrests at all. Further, felony convictions decreased by 86 percent,
total convictions decreased by 80 percent, and 91 percent had
no felony convictions at all. 91 percent of the graduates had
no drug crime convictions and 93 percent had no felony drug crime
convictions. . .
Kammerer comments on a
similarity between the drug and mental health court populations:
"If these people could have gotten their problems under
control - could have broken the vicious cycle - by themselves,
they would have by now. With the support and coercion of the
court, people who couldn't do it on their own can do it."
Specialty courts, he says, "are addressing specific issues
that the criminal justice system has not been able to address."
THE CENTER FOR COURT INNOVATION is a leader
in community justice programs One of its projects, the Red Hook
Commnity Justice Center, has helped crime in the Brooklyn neighborhood
drop 62%. Bronx Community Solutions has placed more than 18,000
misdemeanor offenders into blended punishment-assistance programs.
An internal study finds a 71% drop in recidivism in its drug
courts. There are now some 2,500 community courts nationally
and more than a dozen in Britain and South Africa. The Center
is working with officials in Japan, Australia, New Zealand and
Canada.
[Bragging rights: Greg Berman, executive
director of the CCI, was once an intern at the Progressive Review]
BRONX COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS - "When
I came to Bronx Community Solutions I was labeled a criminal
and now I am getting a trophy and being called a champion."
That's what one of the members of the Bombers said while Bronx
Community Solutions celebrated the first season of the our basketball
league. The trophies were shining and the young men were smiling
as the celebration took place: as they collected their trophies
everyone enjoyed food, drinks and praise for these young men
changing their lives. . .
"I enjoyed playing basketball instead
of spending time getting in trouble"
"I enjoyed playing against the police
instead of being arrested by the police"
"It was a lot of fun with giving back
to the community . . . "
This pilot program was aimed at changing
police and community youth perceptions of each other from antagonist
to comrades. Officer Warren Thompson of the 46th Precinct received
a plaque for his help in organizing police officers for the Bronx
Bombers to play against and expressed how eager he was to participate
in the next season. . .
LOS ANGELES BUSINESS JOURNAL - In order
to tackle the homelessness problem in a more comprehensive fashion,
the establishment of a Community Court should be considered for
Skid Row. This is what New York City did in 1993 to help stop
the deterioration of Times Square and the theater district in
midtown Manhattan. Such a Community Court would deal with quality
of life crimes - public intoxication, illegal panhandling, public
nuisance - committed in that area, and would link the people
committing those crimes to needed services and housing and/or
offer alternative sentences like community service to improve
the area.
This unique problem-solving court was developed
by the Center for Court Innovation as a new and more effective
way to deal with the special problems in New York. It has been
highly successful for a number of reasons. First, it is located
within the area where the quality of life crimes are committed
and is accessible to the defendants so they can respond to their
citations. A single judge plays a critical role in ensuring the
success of the court, so there is a more meaningful outcome from
the criminal justice system and more individual accountability
and responsibility by the defendant. The typical revolving door
does not exist.
The city or district attorney, public defender
and court coordinator work as team to determine what is in the
best interests of the defendant and the community. Justice is
swift and alternative sentencing or referral to service and treatment
is made to fit the needs of the individual person.
The city of Santa Monica and the Los County
Superior Court have established such a court in Santa Monica
thanks to the help of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
In its first 10 months, the Santa Monica Homeless Community Court
has achieved the following outcomes for 70 participants: 31 (44
percent) received an emergency shelter bed; 25 (36 percent) engaged
in drug/alcohol treatment; seven (10 percent) placed in permanent
housing; 13 (19 percent) accessed mental health treatment; 34
(48 percent) had citations or warrants dismissed upon program
completion. . .
As Malcolm Gladwell reported in his 2006
New Yorker article "Million Dollar Murray," in the
early 1990s Dennis Culhane, who is now a professor at the University
of Pennsylvania and one of the foremost researchers in the field,
found that New York was spending at least $62 million dollars
annually to shelter 2,500 chronically homeless people. Boston
Health Care for the Homeless, a leading service group for the
homeless in Boston, has tracked the medical expenses of 119 chronically
homeless people. Over five years the group, minus a few who died
or were sent to nursing homes, accounted for 18,834 emergency-room
visits at a minimum of $3,000 per visit. Researchers at the University
of California-San Diego Medical Center followed 15 chronically
homeless inebriates and found that over 18 months those 15 people
ran up bills that averaged $100,000 per person. The 10 years
that Murray, a chronically homeless man from Reno, Nev., spent
on the streets cost $1 million.
VANCOUVER SUN - This year we will inaugurate
Vancouver's first true community court. It is essentially a pilot
program of quickstep proceedings for nuisance inner-city offenders
who pose little risk of violence. . .
One of the biggest concerns in the criminal
system for more than a decade has been repeat offenders -- often
addicted and usually homeless -- who commit petty offences. It
is positively medieval to imprison them and you can't sentence
them to house arrest since they have no address, so what do you
do?. . .
Community courts were established in the
U.S. in the last century (and they have since sprouted elsewhere
in the world) to deal with criminal matters that shouldn't be
consuming expensive court and correctional time. They have proven
to work.
Under their aegis, as in the similarly
designed specialized drug courts, qualifying offenders are given
more attention than normal and channeled towards help rather
than imprisonment.
They provide a quick response to offenders
by and large living below the poverty line, committing dumb property
crimes to supplement welfare at best and at worst pay for a habit.
Instead of jail and correctional officers,
the offender is introduced to the official panoply of B.C. Housing,
welfare and mental health workers.
In theory, the court cuts across the independent
silos of the various government ministries to provide an integrated
solution that helps rather than punishes the offender. . .
We need a community court because our health
and social programs are inadequate, our safety net so frayed,
too many people are falling through the cracks.
TOMOS LIVINGSTONE, WESTERN MAIL, UK - Wales
is to get its first community court later this month, giving
residents a say on how offenders will be punished. The new Community
Justice Court will be based in Merthyr Tydfil, and will see magistrates
and court staff working alongside community groups to tackle
anti-social behavior and help reduce re-offending. Although sentences
will still be passed by magistrates, residents will be able to
suggest suitable punishments for minor offences.
The courts were introduced in Liverpool
in 2005, inspired by successful schemes in deprived parts of
the US. Since then 10 other courts have been set up in England.
The courts look at ways to reduce re-offending, and are intended
to liaise with agencies which work to cut drug and alcohol abuse,
as well as housing and employment agencies. The judges and magistrates
involved are intended to hold regular meetings in the community
in order to gain an understanding of local problems.
KENNEBEC JOURNAL, ME - Two years ago, when
students at the Troy A. Howard Middle School in Belfast misbehaved,
they wound up in the detention room for an hour. The room usually
held about 14 students every Tuesday and Thursday, overseen by
a teacher who shared the after-school duty.
Today the scene at the middle school detention
room is entirely different. The room often is empty because no
one has misbehaved. When it is occupied, students and teacher
sit in a circle and talk.
The changes in the detention room, school
administrators say, are the result of a program called restorative
justice, which tries to teach students the consequences of misbehavior.
Not only do students openly discuss their infractions, but they
must apologize and make restitution in some way. "It has
been a huge, huge positive," Principal Kimberly Buckheit
said. Widely used in juvenile criminal justice systems, restorative
justice practices are moving into classrooms across the country.
. .
The Regional Education Alternative Learning
School, an alternative school for seventh- through 12th-graders
with campuses in Windham and on Mackworth Island, has used restorative
justice techniques for the past five years, with help from a
grant from the Department of Corrections Juvenile Justice Advisory
Group. Students may choose to attend a community resolution circle
led by a teacher.Each student must tell the other students in
the circle what he or she did.
The other students and any victim who agrees
to participate discuss how the student's misbehavior affected
other people at the school. The student must come up with a way
to make restitution through some sort of community service, such
as cleaning a teacher's classroom or -- in the case of a food-throwing
incident -- helping the janitors clean the lunch room. . .
Community circles have been incorporated
into classroom instruction as well, because the techniques give
every student a turn to speak, Buckheit said.
AUBREY FOX, GOTHAM GAZETTE - When Emily
May set up the Web site Holla Back with six friends in October
2005, she didn't expect much response. . . Inspired by Thao Nguyen,
whose decision to snap a cellphone picture of a subway rider
masturbating led to a high-profile arrest and prosecution, Holla
Back gives visitors, mostly women, a forum to post photographs
and stories about their experiences being groped, catcalled or
otherwise sexually harassed in public.
It didn't take long for the Web site to
catch fire. "It was wild," said May. . . Little is
known about the precise extent of harassment, despite an avalanche
of anecdotal information and some small-scale surveys. . .
In a rare attempt to quantify the frequency
of street harassment, Nielsen interviewed 100 subjects (including
some men) in the Bay Area. Fully 62 percent of the women reported
experiencing offensive or sexually suggestive comments "every
day" or "often." An additional 28 percent said
they heard comments "sometimes." Only 10 percent of
the women she interviewed said that they "never" heard
comments.
SAM SMITH, PROGRESSIVE REVIEW, 1990 - The
decline of the older city is intimately related to the problem
of crime. One need not get into a chicken-¬and-egg argument
to recognize that the failures of urban policy contribute to
crime and crime contributes to the failure of cities. The question
is: how to be interrupt this destructive cycle? The conventional
answers -- more police and more prisons -- not only haven't worked
they are beginning to bankrupt a number of cities. As with the
economy and the environment, we have to engage in lateral rather
than incremental thinking if we are to come up with solutions
that will really make a difference.
There are a number of things that could
be done, but none are more important than restoring the community
to the focus of our attempts to obtain social order. Most law
and order stems from personal and community values or peer pressure
of one sort or another. Yet our prescription for law and order
in the city tends to ignore the role of the community, using
as its surrogate vastly over-extended police departments and
courts.
There is no substitute for organic social
order, as even totalitarian countries have discovered. To create
this organic system of justice, we must return to the community
and build our justice system out from it.
Community courts and neighborhood constables
are one way of re-creating community law and order. Back in the
60s I took part in a debate with DC public safety commissioner
Patrick Murphy and a representative of the International Chiefs
of Police, making the argument that the centralization of the
local police department and deployment of officers to squad cars
was moving in the wrong direction. The police reporter for the
Washington Post turned to the person next to him and asked, "Who
is that nut?"
Now, more and more cities are moving towards
this concept, calling it "community policing." Recently,
even as mainstream a figure as Matthew Crosson, chief administrator
of New York state courts, called for the creation of community
courts in neighborhoods to handle minor crimes. It should be
noted, however, that neither the current view of community policing
nor Crosson's idea of community courts go far enough in bringing
the community into the justice system. For the system to really
work, both police and courts not only have to be in the community
but of the community as well. The power as well as the structure
has to be in the neighborhood.
SAM SMITH, GREAT AMERICAN POLITICAL REPAIR
MANUAL, 1997 - What law enforcement tool does every shopping
mall and big office building have -- but not most neighborhoods?
Their own police force.
It is hard to imagine how we can restore
order to our communities without giving them some role in creating
and maintaining this order.
Think, for example, about what typically
happens when a kid first gets into trouble -- minor shoplifting,
vandalism, a fight. The police are called to the scene. And what
do the police do? They remove the young person from the very
community against which the crime has been committed. The implicit
message is that your sin is against the city or the country or
the state, not against your neighbors or your community. Thus,
from the very start we teach the wrong lesson.
Imagine instead that the community had
its own constables -- with police training and powers -- but
who lived in the community, were known in the community and helped
the community maintain its own order. In minor non-violent offenses,
the first person on the scene would be the constable, who could
quickly bring the offender before a community judicial board
instead of waiting months for the matter to wend its way through
the normal judicial labyrinth. If found guilty, the offender
would have to provide restitution or perform community service.
Neither is the notion of community-based
restorative justice untested. Writing in The Progressive Review,
David Spero described how western New York's Genesee County found
itself with overflowing jail cells. It turned to community service
sentences and to recruiting non-profits, schools, churches and
road crews to assign hard work in lieu of jail time. As Spero
noted, for the criminals working with such institutions it "was
often their first positive contact with anyone in authority."
Then the county developed a system of victim
support, including restitution from offenders. A felon diversion
program allowed screened offenders a chance to put their lives
together while their case was put on hold. Only 5% of those in
the program turned out to be repeat offenders. Spero described
one case:
"An 18-year-old sniper on LSD seriously
wounded two passers-by. He went through diversion for 18 months,
including victim-offender conciliation. This conciliation helps
victims heal and forces offenders to confront the pain they have
caused. The young sniper finally received a short jail sentence
plus community service and now works, pays taxes, and raises
a family in Genesee County."
Communities can get involved in other ways,
as in the a victim-offender mediation program of LA's Centinela
Valley. Director Steve Goldsmith told Spero how is works:
"First we get the victim to agree
to mediation, then the young offenders and their parents. We
hold the sessions at a place convenient to the victim, with two
volunteer mediators who have gone through 40 hours of free training.
The mediators let the victim and offender work out the solution.
The important thing is the kids have to hear the consequences
of their actions on others.
Such programs take a lot of effort. There
are about 200 volunteer sponsors and victim advocates in the
Genesee program and more than a 100 community agencies working
with offenders. "
SHARED
EQUITY HOME PURCHASES
This would be a program for new
and less wealthy would-be homebuyers in which the federal government
became an equity partner with the purchaser. At the time of sale,
the federal government would get its share back including its
portion of the increase in value. This program would be immensely
popular not only with would-be home buyers but with the real
estate industry. And the beauty is that it could easily be a
money maker
ENDING
FORECLOSURES
DEAN BAKER, TRUTHOUT - There is a simple and direct way in which
the federal government can help out millions of moderate-income
families struggling to keep their homes: They can simply change
the rules on foreclosure to allow moderate-income homeowners
the option to remain in their homes indefinitely as renters,
paying the fair market rent.
This proposal would immediately
give moderate-income homeowners a guarantee they would not be
thrown out of the street because they cannot meet the terms of
a predatory mortgage. It accomplishes this goal without requiring
any elaborate new bureaucracy and without requiring a single
dollar from the taxpayers. And this plan does not bail out the
bankers, hedge funds, and other financial industry types who
were speculating in mortgage debt.
Here's how the plan works: Currently,
if a homeowner is not able to make their mortgage payments, the
holder of the mortgage can go to court to place the house in
foreclosure. This means, if the homeowner is not able to come
up with back payments on the mortgage, or work out an acceptable
arrangement with the mortgage holder, the bank or financial institution
that holds the mortgage retakes ownership of the house and can
have the homeowner evicted.
Under this security of housing proposal,
the foreclosure process would be changed so the current homeowner
would have the option to remain in their house as a renter paying
the fair market rent. If a homeowner chose to go this route,
the judge in the foreclosure proceeding would appoint an independent
appraiser to determine the fair market rent for the house, in
the same way a bank hires an appraiser to determine the value
of the house before issuing a mortgage.
The former homeowner could then
remain in their home as a renter for as long as they liked. The
rent would be adjusted at regular intervals in step with the
change of other rents in the area. There could even be an appeal
process in which either party could request that the judge get
a second appraisal, at the expense of the person complaining
about the original appraisal. This should ensure the rent set
for the house is fair. After the foreclosure, the mortgage holder
would now own the house and be free to sell it to another person,
but the former homeowner would still have the right to remain
as a renter, regardless of who owned the house.
This program could be restricted
to homes that cost less than the median house price for an area
to ensure high income homeowners do not take advantage of it.
The program would also only apply to people who lived in their
homes, not investors. In short, it is a very simple and low-cost
way to help moderate-income homebuyers. It does not give them
any windfalls, but it can ensure they don't end up being thrown
out on the street.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082007C.shtml
AN ELECTED ATTORNEY GENERAL
Progressive Review editor
Sam Smith and Pentagon whistleblower Ernie Fitzgerald have proposed
a constitutional amendment to provide for an independent attorney
general selected in an off-year election. The idea is to replace
independent prosecutors with a permanent watchdog on the federal
government -- someone who is not politically beholden to the
president and cannot be removed by the president.
1. The Attorney General of the United States
shall be elected to office in the same
manner as the President and Vice President, and shall be subject
to impeachment and removal in the same manner.
2. The first election of the Attorney General
shall take place in the first odd-numbered
year after ratification of this Amendment.
3. The Attorney General shall be elected
for a term of six years and may not succeed
himself in office.
4. The Attorney General shall be paid the
same annual salary as the Vice President at
the time of the Attorney General's election.
5. On the completion of each full six-year
term the Attorney General shall receive a
annual stipend for life of 20% of his or her annual pay while
in office.
6. Upon entering office, the Attomey General
shall take an oath to uphold the statutory
laws and the Constitution of the United States as originally
written and amended and to
apply them equally to all parties without regard to special status
or privilege.
7. Neither the Attorney General nor his
subordinates nor any other government
prosecutor shall intrude upon inquiries or deliberations of a
grand jury without an
invitation or subpoena from the grand jury.
8. All statements or declarations by government
prosecutors regarding a case at law
shall be considered under oath and subject to penalties for perjury
and false statements generally, and all prosecutors shall be
subject to cross-examination by defendants and jurors.
9. The guarantees of human rights for all
natural persons and the limitations of
government powers delegated by the people through the Constitution
shall apply to the
facts of each case within the jurisdiction of the United States
or any of them without the
prejudice of prior interpretations.
10. These same guarantees and limitations
on government powers shall be honored by all triers of fact and
law in all legal issues arising within the jurisdiction of the
United States or any of them.
YOUTH RIGHTS
DRINKING AGES IN SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
Albania No minimum age
Austria 14
Denmark No minimum drinking age
Finland No minimum drinking age
France 16 (beer, wine
Germany 16 (beer, wine
Hungary No minimum age
Italy 16
Poland No minimum drinking age
Portugal 16
Romania No minimum drinking age
Russia No minimum drinking age
Spain 16
Switzerland 16
United Kingdom 5 (on private property with parental consent)
MARTIAL LAW
ROBERT KUBEY, FAIR - On October 17, 2006,
when George W. Bush signed the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act of 2007 - a $538 billion military spending bill - he enacted
into law a section called "Use of the Armed Forces in Major
Public Emergencies." In the view of many, this Act substantially
changed fundamental laws of the United States, giving Bush -
and all future U.S. presidents - new and sweeping powers to use
the U.S. military anywhere in the United States, virtually as
he sees fit - for disaster relief, crowd control, suppression
of public disorder, or any "other condition" that might
arise.
News coverage of these significant changes in the law has been
virtually nonexistent. . . What could happen under the new law?
As just one example, let's say hundreds of demonstrators in Boston
engaged in civil disobedience, sitting-in on the Boston Common
to protest the country's policies in Iraq, and traffic ground
to a halt. Under the new law, the president could order in the
Massachusetts National Guard to clear out the protesters even
if the Massachusetts governor opposed this.
Indeed, the president could order the Guard of any state into
any other state - even if the governors of both states objected.
Or the president could choose to use any element of the U.S.
military - the Army, Air Force, Navy or Marines - to suppress
a protest or carry out practically any kind of domestic action
the president desired. And all of this with essentially no oversight
- or checks and balances - on how the commander-in-chief uses
these powers. Basically, after sending the National Guard somewhere,
he or she merely needs to report to Congress every couple of
weeks to let them know what the Guard is doing.
The law is so vague and far-reaching that numerous, normally
conservative military and law enforcement groups, including the
National Guard Association, the National Sheriffs' Association
and the Adjutants General Association, have publicly come out
against it, pledging their support for a new, bipartisan Senate
bill from senators Leahy and Christopher Bond (R.-Mo.) that would
overturn all the changes in law that occurred this past October.
The National Governors Association is displeased as well. In
rare unanimity, the association called, on February 2, 2007,
for the new law to be overturned, saying that it "unnecessarily
expanded the president's authority to federalize the National
Guard," a change "drafted without consultation with
the governors and without full discussion or debate." All
50 U.S. governors have signed on to the association's letter
of opposition - including all 22 Republican governors.
The Adjutants General Association, which represents officers
responsible for National Guard training and readiness, also stands
in opposition to the Act, saying that the language of the NDAA
"significantly broadens the president's ability to declare
martial law and mobilize the National Guard under national command
without consulting with the governors." It adds that this
broadening was "completely unnecessary" and done without
any "committee or floor debate in either legislative chamber
and with explicit opposition from the governors."
One might think that major military and law enforcement organizations
and the united governors registering their displeasure would
spark some news coverage, investigation and public debate. Yet
the first news coverage did not appear until the first hearings
on the Leahy/Bond bill, over six months after the bill was first
signed. Even then, there was just a handful of stories - among
them wire stories by Cox, McClatchy and AP, and editorials in
the Winston-Salem Journal and Newsday.
While there was no news coverage, four months and two days after
the bill was signed into law, the New York Times did take notice
with an editorial headlined "Making Martial Law Easier."
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3118
WHO PRINTS THE
MONEY?
BOB BLAIN, PROGRESSIVE REVIEW, 1994 - By
1993 federal debt was $4.4 trillion. From 1790 to 1993, taxpayers
were charged $3.2 trillion in interest on federal debt. . . The
present federal debt is arguably the original debt enlarged by
204 years of compounding interest.
According to the Federal Reserve Bulletin,
the total money supply (currency, travelers checks, demand deposits,
and savings accounts) in the U.S. economy in March 1993 was $4
trillion. The total debt of the federal government, state and
local governments, corporations, farmers, home buyers, and consumers
was in excess of $15 trillion. If the total money supply is $4
trillion, where is the other $11 trillion of borrowed money?.
. .
The federal government has been adding
interest to its debt for 204 years. James Jackson, Congressman
from Georgia, predicted that this would happen in a speech he
made to the First Congress on February 9, 1790. Jackson warned
that passing Alexander Hamilton's plan to base the country's
money supply on the existing federal debt of $75 million would
"settle upon our posterity a burden which they can neither
bear nor relieve themselves from." He predicted: "In
the course of a single century it would be multiplied to an extent
we dare not think of," . . .
The power to deal with this problem that
Congress has neglected all these years is the power "to
coin money and regulate the value thereof." It has overused
its power "to borrow money on the credit of the United States."
According to the Federal Reserve, 98 percent of the U.S. money
supply is borrowed. Only 2 percent is coined.
The First Congress set the wrong precedent.
It should have created $75 million in money and paid off the
debt. With a population of 4 million people and an economy starved
for a medium of exchange, that would have increased the money
supply by $18.75 per person.
Why did the First Congress borrow instead
of coin money? Newspapers at the time accused members of Congress
of acting to serve their own interests. They sent agents into
the countryside to buy up debt certificates that the general
public thought were worthless. They then passed the Funding Act
knowing that it would give themselves and their heirs a source
of income that would grow exponentially with the debt. For every
debtor there is a creditor. What is a $4 trillion debt for debtors
is $4 trillion in claims for creditors.
To get out of this trap Congress has a
range of options:
First, it could stop paying interest on
the debt. Interest is the fuel that is exploding the debt. Cut
off the fuel; stop the explosion. Since 1790 over $3 trillion
in interest has been added to the original $75 million. Cutting
interest would immediately cut the annual deficit by about $300
billion. Experience shows that all other conventional actions,
no matter how painful, do no more than slow slightly the rate
of debt growth. Then Congress could begin the process of paying
off the debt.
A political problem with stopping the payment
of interest is that people with money control politics. And many
of them would have their interest income stopped. Insurance companies
and pension funds are invested in federal debt and foreign holders
would also be upset. Economically, however, we cannot continue
to add compounding interest to existing debt. . .
A second option is for Congress to create
the money necessary to fund public works. As a sovereign government,
Congress' power is unique. It can create money debt-free and
interest-free. Congress needs to stop thinking of itself as the
same as other organizations that must take money in before they
can spend it. Money does not grow on trees. It must be created.
The only choice is whether to have it created as loans at interest
from private banks or to have it created by Congress debt-free
and interest-free. . .
A third more conservative option is being
proposed by an organization called Sovereignty, which believes
that a country that borrows money loses its sovereignty to its
creditors. Their proposal is intended to restore U.S. sovereignty
by reducing our dependence on borrowed money. Sovereignty proposes
that Congress create money and lend it interest-free on a per
capita formula to tax-supported bodies for capital projects and
to convert existing debt to non-interest-bearing debt. Since
first proposed in January 1989, the Sovereignty loan plan has
been endorsed by over 1,814 city, town, and county governments
and school boards, as well as by the U.S. conference of Mayors,
the Michigan state legislature and the Community Bankers Association
of Illinois, which represents 515 banks.
As loans, the money would be repaid, so
money injected into communities would fund projects, then be
removed. Of the three methods for putting money into circulation
available to Congress, giving, paying, and lending, lending is
the most cautious.
Benjamin Franklin attributed the economic
success of the colonies to their creation of all the money they
needed. He said that the root cause of the Revolution was the
act of Parliament that prohibited the colonies from continuing
to issue their own money. The moneylenders of England thought
it more profitable that the colonies borrow their money. . .
Money is no more than an accounting device,
a system of notes certifying that the bearer has done a share
of the work and deserves a share of the wealth. Money's backing
is the goods and services produced by the labor force. By creating
money Congress can activate the idle productive power of our
people. And what they produce will add real wealth to the U.S.
Treasury and add nothing to the federal debt.
FULL ARTICLE
http://sovereign.htm
SAM SMITH' GREAT AMERICAN POLITICAL REPAIR
MANUAL, 1997 - In the early 19th century, the little British
Channel island of Guernsey faced a problem. Its sea walls were
crumbling. its roads were too narrow, and it was already heavily
in debt. There was little employment and people were leaving
for elsewhere.
Instead of going still further into debt,
the island government simply issued 4,000 pounds in state notes
to start repairs on the sea walls as well as for other needed
public works. More issues followed and twenty years later the
island had, in effect, printed nearly 50,000 pounds. Guernsey
had more than doubled its money supply without inflation.
A report of the island's States Office in June 1946 noted that
island leaders frequently commented that these public works could
not have been carried out without the issues, that they had been
accomplished without interest costs, and that as a result "the
influx of visitors was increased, commerce was stimulated, and
the prosperity of the Island vastly improved." By 1943,
nearly a half million pounds worth of notes belonged to the public
and was so valued that much of it was being hoarded in people's
homes, awaiting the island's liberation from the Germans.
About the same time that Guernsey started
to fix its sea walls the town of Glasgow, Scotland, borrowed
60,000 pounds to build a fruit market. The Guernsey sea walls
were repaid in ten years, the fruit market loan took 139. In
the first part of the 20th century, Glasgow paid over a quarter
million pounds in interest alone on this ancient project.
How did Guernsey avoid the fiscal disaster
that conventional economics prescribed for it? First and foremost
by understanding that when you build roads or sea walls or colleges
or houses, you are not reducing your society's wealth. In fact,
if you do it right, you are creating something that will add
to its wealth. The money that was created was simply backed by
public works rather than gold or "full faith and credit."
It was, in fact, based on something more solid than the dollar
bills in our wallets today. In contrast, tacking on an interest
charge to public works -- as we do in the US -- creates no new
wealth, but merely transfers claims on existing wealth from debtors
to creditors.
MASS BLACK INCARCERATION
BRUCE DIXON, BLACK AGENDA REPORT - Throughout the 1930s, 40s and 50s, being identified
as an active member of the NAACP in the South could cost your
livelihood and home, your freedom, even your life. Many whose
names nobody remembers served, and quite a few paid that price.
Today's NAACP officials, like their counterparts
in corporate America, fly and dine first class --- they hobnob
with celebrities and CEOs, and they depend on Disney, Chrysler,
Bank of America and Fox TV to broadcast its annual Image Awards,
which are handed out to other celebrities and black officials
of whichever administration is in power.. The NAACP has in the
recent past even chosen its CEO from the ranks of black execs
at telecommunications corporations that digitally redline African
American neighborhoods.
A significant portion of the black leadership
in those days was responsible to black communities alone. They
crafted political responses to the public policy crises of that
era which they pursued both inside and outside America's legal
system, responses aimed at changing public policies that harmed
African American communities. Attorneys Charles Hamilton Houston
and Thurgood Marshall crisscrossed the continent defending black
prisoners on death row and filing cases to overturn legal segregation.
It was due to years of these efforts that Thurgood Marshall,
in the 1940s became known as "Mr. Civil Rights".
By contrast, a current black elected official
like Atlanta's Kasim Reed, whose legal practice consists of defending
corporate employers from civil rights and discrimination lawsuits
represents himself with a straight face as a "civil rights
lawyer". Presidential candidate Barack Obama too, is widely
credited with being a "civil rights lawyer" too, despite
having tried few or no significant civil rights cases in any
court of law. . .
Can you imagine the black leadership in
your town even talking to high school students, let alone calling
them out in the street to accomplish a change in public policy?
Can you envision today's celebrity and business-oriented black
leadership trying to mobilize black America for anything more
radical than watching their TV shows, buying their books, or
volunteering and voting in their campaigns for political office.
It is hard to construct a scenario in which today's black leaders
might be induced to stand up to the crime control industry, to
become persistent, forceful advocates of revolutionary reforms
which can appeal broadly to the African American community .
. .
Whenever we do see the beginnings of a
mass movement to challenge our nation's misguided policy of black
mass incarceration, one that unites our young and our old, our
churches and our unions and the people on our street corners
it won't be led by the folks we think of as black leaders today.
And until the policy of mass incarceration is transformed into
an explicitly political issue and directly challenged, black
youth have little reason to listen to those leaders.
DEFINING
AND BANNING USURY
Beginning in the 1980s - as part of the
Reagan counter-revoution - interest rate controls began disappearing
in this country. Rates that generally were below ten percent
would rise as much as three times.
The media did not report this story, the
politicians did not deal with it, and the banks got away with
murder. This is not your average political or economic change;
it altered views of fair interest rates going back to the earliest
times. Essentially usury became legal.
A logical approach would be to return to
pre-Reagan interest rate rules. The banks would be furious, but
the rest of America would be better off. But while the exact
maximum interest rate is debatable; what is not debatable is
that today's rates are indefensible. Here is some interesting
background on the issue:
STEPHEN ZRLENGA, DIRECTOR, AMERICAN MONETARY
INSTITUTE - Aristotle (384-322 Bc) Formulated the classical view
against usury. Aristotle understood that money is sterile; it
doesn't beget more money the way cows beget more cows. He knew
that "Money exists not by nature but by law":
"The most hated sort (of wealth getting)
and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out
of money itself and not from the natural object of it. For money
was intended to be used in exchange but not to increase at interest.
. . Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth, this is the most
unnatural."
And Aristotle really disliked usurers,
"those who ply sordid trades, pimps and all such people,
and those who lend small sums at high rates. For all these take
more than they ought, and from the wrong sources. What is common
to them is evidently a sordid love of gain"
The Scholastics (1100 -1500 AD), church
scholars familiar with the available writings in existence, echoed
Aristotle. Acquinas argued that money is a measure, and usury
"diversifys the measure" placing extra demands on the
money mechanism which harmed its function as a measure. . .
The Scholastics made the first attempt
at a science of economics and their main concern was usury; but
this was not the same as just charging interest. It was generally
not forbidden to earn interest if the lender was actually taking
some risk, without a guaranteed gain. Interest could also be
charged when the lender suffered some loss or passed up some
opportunity by extending the loan. . .
Two types of loans were always exempt from
bans on interest: the "Societas", where the lender
assumed some portion of the risk of the enterprise. Also exempt
was the "Census" - an obligation to pay an annual return
based on some "fruitful" property. At first it was
paid in real produce, later in money.
The Census was normally capitalized at
8 times the annual return, but the risk of the "fruitful"
base was on the lender not the borrower, for if the crop were
destroyed by weather, the borrower had no obligation that year.
Later cities issued "census" obligations based an tax
revenues, which came to be called "rents".
Usury was much more than charging interest
- it was taking unfair advantage; usury was an anti-social misuse
of the money mechanism. Similar to the term Riba in the Islamic
world.
The church's condemnation of usury: Pope
Innocent IV (1250-1261) noted that if usury were permitted, rich
people would prefer to put their money in a usurious loan rather
than invest in agriculture. Only the poor would do the farming
and they didn't have the animals and tools to do it. Famine would
result. Burudian, a professor at the University of Paris wrote
that: "Usury is evil. . . because the usurer seeks avariciously
what has no finite limits". . . . St. Bernardine of Siena
(1380-1444) observed that usury concentrates the money of the
community into the hands of the few.
Divine and human law: All mankind's moral
and legal codes censured usury, normally with mild limits on
interest rates. But the Old Testament strictly forbade Jews from
taking usury from their "brothers" (other Jews), and
discouraged taking it from strangers. The Scholastics looked
on all mankind as brothers. Other codes restricted usury:
- Code Of Hammurabi (2130-2088 BC) limited
usury to 33%;
- Hindoo Law - Damdupat - limited interest
to the full amount of the loan;
- Roman Law limited interest; Justinian's
6th century Code reduced the 12½% limit of Constantine
the Great, to 4-8%, and accumulated interest could not exceed
principal.
- The Koran totally forbids usury, from
the 7th century;
- Charlemagne's laws flatly forbade usury
in 806 AD.
- Magna Carta placed limits on usury in
1215 AD.
- Most states of the United States enforced
usury limits until 1981.
Action against usurers: Pope Leo the Great
(440-461) laid the cornerstone for later usury laws when he forbade
clerics from taking usury and condemned laymen for it. In 850
the Synod of Paris excommunicated all usurers. The 2nd Lateran
Council (1139) declared that unrepentant usurers were condemned
by both the Old and New Testaments. Pope Urban III (1185-87)
cited Christ's words "lend freely, hoping nothing thereby"
(Luke 6:35).
Judicial action was taken against those
openly practicing usury and the Church never condoned Jewish
usury activity. Christian usurers who used semantic tricks in
making loans were worried about excommunication and being denied
the sacraments, especially burial in sacred ground. They used
every word trick to avoid the usury label. Goods were sold on
credit at a higher price which factored interest in. "Dry
Exchange" bills in foreign currency were not sent for collection
but resold to the borrower for a higher amount, reflecting interest.
Usurers were required to make monetary
restitution to their "victims", and if they couldn't
be found, to the poor through the Church. . . The heirs of usurers
were also required to make restitution.
Fall of the usury prohibition: As economies
became more dynamic, with real growth possibilities, it became
clear that charging interest on business loans where the borrowing
merchant prospered, couldn't be condemned as greed or lack of
charity and by 1516 the idea of a lending institution charging
interest for its services had been overwhelming accepted.
Calvin's reformation: John Calvin finished
off the usury ban in 1536. But his arguments were shallow compared
to the Scholastics: "When I buy a field does not money breed
money?", he asked rhetorically. For centuries the Scholastics
had demonstrated the correct answer is no - it is the field not
the money which grows products. Calvin wasn't enthusiastic about
usury. . . He considered usury sinful only if it hurt ones neighbor
and that it was generally legitimate in business loans.
How capitalism viewed interest: The justification
for charging interest evolved historically in works promoting
capitalism. One recurring theme was to attack Aristotle. Francis
Bacon's Works (1610) thrashed the Scholastics for: "almost
having incorporated the contentious philosophy of Aristotle into
the body of Christian religion... Usury is a thing allowed by
reason of the hardness of men's hearts. For since there must
be borrowing and lending, and men are so hard of heart as they
will not lend freely, usury must be permitted
In William Petty's 1682 Quantulumcunque
Concerning Money usury is redefined as: "A reward for forbearing
the use of your own money for a term of time agreed upon, whatsoever
need your self may have of it in the meanwhile."
This ascetic rewarding of self denial,
with religious overtones, is still used by some in the 20th century,
but Adam Smith's 1776 Wealth Of Nations, capitalism's "bible,"
put aside these earlier rationales, and justified usury in economic
terms:
"The interest or the use of money.
. . is the compensation which the borrower pays to the lender,
for the profit which he has an opportunity of making by the use
of the money. Part of that profit naturally belongs to the borrower
who runs the risk and takes the trouble of employing it; and
part to the lender, who affords him the opportunity of making
this profit." This is how interest is popularly viewed today.
But Smith overlooked that the lender gets his profit even when
the enterprise loses; he ignored the successful business structures
used by Venice for centuries, where the lender's return was based
on actual profits. Smith's endorsement did not remove the stigma
against usury; and the debate continued.
Eleven years later Jeremy Bentham's In
Defence Of Usury (1787) . . . dismissed the harmful effects of
usury on the common man: "Simple people will be robbed more
in buying goods than in borrowing money." . . .
Despite continuous pressure and support
from the financial community, the various justifications for
usury proved inadequate in 1836 when John Whipple, an American
lawyer wrote The Importance Of Usury Laws -An Answer To Jeremy
Bentham. Whipple proved the impossibility of sustaining long
term metallic usury:
"If 5 English pennies... had been...
at 5 per cent compound interest from the beginning of the Christian
era until the present time, it would amount in gold of standard
fineness to 32,366,648,157 spheres of gold each eight thousand
miles in diameter, or as large as the earth."
Whipple knew that answering the usury question
required an accurate view of the nature of money, and he echoed
Aristotle:
"It was never intended as an article
of trade, as an article possessing an inherent value in itself,
(but) as a representative or test of the value of all other articles."
. . .
This view is clearly drawn from Aristotle's
concept of money that money exists not by nature but by law.
Aristotle clearly identifies the essence of money as an abstract
legal institution invented by society - a creature of the law.
One can imagine how advanced the world
of finance would be today if someone like Whipple were present
at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Had his viewpoint been
distilled into law many unnecessary hardships (and wars?) could
have been avoided. Instead the delegates operated under a primitive
commodity concept of money, similar to that of the ancient oriental
system and ignored the crucial monetary questions. . .
The modern world is now getting a taste
of real usury. Up to 1981, interest limits (usually under 10%)
were in effect in most of the USA. Today credit card debt is
very high and growing, along with personal bankruptcy rates.
Most people are paying 21 - 25% interest on their credit cards
each year. Money they really can't afford to pay. Some economists
actually favor letting the market charge whatever interest rates
people can be forced to pay. But this should not continue - it
will do so much harm to society that all the free market economists
in the world chanting in unison won't be able to hide the damage.
Approaching the usury question intelligently
requires a better understanding of the nature of money. . . How
should civilized society view usury? First I think we have to
admit that we don't have the full answer. But we do know parts
of it. . .
AMERICAN MONETARY INSITUTE
http://monetary.org/usurytalk.htm
ABOLITION
OF WAR
Could the end of war be the abolition
movement of the 21st century?
Even leaving morality aside, it
would make a lot of sense. The United States, for example, hasn't
won a war - in the sense of gaining something significant other
than the symbolism of "victory" - in over sixty years.
In fact the few military victories have been mostly against military
less than 1% the size of ours - Panama, Grenada and Bosnia. The
one exception - the first Iraq war - was against a force 15%
the size of America's.
America's defense expenditures are
more than double those of all the other top ten militaries combined.
Yet we continue to drastically shortchange healthcare, retirement
and education on behalf of purported military readiness.
One reason we are so willing to
do so is because we consider war inevitable. In fact, war is
not the product of human nature but of the organized state, a
fairly recent invention in human history. Further, the nature
of this invention has drastically changed over time. What general
today would order his troops to fight in the manner of Henry
VIII or even General Grant or Lee? And what did the American
Revolution, the Civil War and Vietnam have in common, how were
they different and which list is longer? Why do we use the same
term to describe conflict that a hundred years ago claimed civilians
as only 20% of its casualties but today results in 80% of its
victims being civilians?
And what was the logic of World
War I? After all those deaths, it helped to produce Hitler. Even
a non-romantic look at the Civil War would at least raise the
question: was there another less deadly way of having dealt with
slavery and the South?
A logical review of America's own
wars since WWII would lead almost inevitably to the conclusion
that wars are no longer - if they ever were - an effective way
of handling foreign affairs. They are excessively costly, environmentally
disastrous, kill too many people and don't produced the sought-after
results.
We avoid such questions because
they seem almost unpatriotic. But what if war is another form
of behavior - like slavery in the 19th century - that we now
- if we so will it - have the potential of declaring extinct
as part of our moral and social evolution?
We rarely ask this question not
only because it seems too hard, but because we routinely accept
accustomed approaches that are reasonable in the short run -
such demanding the end to a particular war - but which avoid
the larger issue.
In other words, we remain peace
activists instead of becoming war abolitionists.
We call ourselves anti-war protestors but are really only talking
about Iraq. And so forth.
The alternative would be a serious
war abolition movement that would help others understand the
futility of the military approach, its masochistic costs and
the techniques and advantages of peace and mediation.
If this all sounds too radical,
consider the following:
"I know war as few other men
now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have
long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness
on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of
settling international disputes. . . "
And this:
"Men since the beginning of
time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have
been attempted to devise an international process to prevent
or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable
methods were found in so far as individual citizens were concerned,
but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international
scope have never been successful.
"Military alliances, balances
of power, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the
only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness
of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last
chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable
system, our Armageddon will be at our door."
The first words were spoken by General
Douglas MacArthur during his farewell address to Congress. The
second was from his statement soon after the surrender of the
Japanese aboard the battleship Missouri.
A couple of years later, Japan approved
a constitution with this provision:
"Aspiring sincerely to an international
peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever
renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat
or use of force as means of settling international disputes."
ABOLISH WAR
http://www.abolishwar.org.uk/avoid.shtml
TRANSCEND
http://www.transcend.org/
HOLISTIC ECONOMICS
FOR THE PAST quarter century, discussions
of economic matters have been badly discolored by the distorted
and childlike views of conservative economists. Even the media
has bought into the rightwing economic mythology.
Traditional economists, of both left and
right, often act like religious fundamentalists, except that
they believe in the power of money rather than of Jesus.
We badly need what has been called post-autistic
economics or, to use a less loaded phrase, holistic economics,
which is to say looking at these matters as part of the natural
complexity of life rather than regarding them with the artificial
simplicity of theory.
If we took such an approach we would discover
some solutions just waiting around for someone to notice. For
example, cities - stuck in what one time Madison WI mayor Paul
Soglin called lemon socialism - could allow themselves - and
not just banks and developers - to make money. Land that is presently
sold to developers at bargain prices might be leased by the city
or a city might launch a shared equity program for lower income
homebuyers under which it would be an equity partner and enjoy
a portion of the profits at sale.
Holistic economics would look at other
things now ignored - such as a gross domestic product that included
volunteer work, parents' work and even the drug trade. Corporate
disasters such as oil spills would not add to such a revised
domestic product.
Holistic economics would recognize that
humans do many things for reasons other than money. It would
integrate itself into values such as cooperation and community,
tradition and religion.
Holistic economics would also tackle a
topic no one seems to want to touch: what sort of system works
best without destroying natural resources including air, land
and water? What sort of system does not depend on masochistic
exploitation of the earth it is meant to serve?
And how do we develop an economic system
not based on population growth as a major force to expand markets?
You won't hear about this on Marketplace
or read about it in the business section of the New York Times,
but the issues won't go away just because we don't talk about
them.
FALSE PROFITS
http://prorev.com/wbprofits.htm
THE TRUE
COST OF TRAVEL
[Another in our series on important issues
that are ignored or suppressed by the establishment including
the media. We will eventually have a page devoted to this topic]
SOME YEARS AGO, your editor asked a transportation
expert to name the best form of mass transit. Without hesitation
he replied, "Stop people from moving around so much."
He was ahead of his time because even today
the cost of mobility is played down in transportation planning,
environmental discussions and urban design. For example, while
contemporary urban planning gives some attention to things like
walkability and access, the same cities will simultaneously be
planning new mass transit or highway systems that will encourage
people to live further away from where they need to go.
Similarly, there is much talk of gas mileage
but not as much about gas use. Until recently, my wife and I
had two cars, each 12 years old, that did not do all that well
in gas mileage but which we drove about half the average annual
mileage of an American car. Miles per year are at least as important
as miles per gallon.
And there are a lot of issues that don't
even make it to the table. Such as how do we redesign existing
neighborhoods to allow more accessible community services such
as used to exist - like the corner deli, convenience store or
cleaners? Zoning and urban planning took many of these away from
urban neighborhoods. How do we get them back? My own neighborhood
- Capitol Hill in Washington - still has lots of these services.
I can walk to two hardware stores, a car repair shop, farmer's
market, post office and similar services.
And what about big box stores? How do you
make them more accessible to mass transit? What incentives can
be used to encourage this? And why not have shops inside subway
stations and other insufficiently used locations?
Here are some other ways our excess mobility
affects our environment:
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON, 2006 - A huge
change in how we travel is desperately needed to halt a trend
that will see the UK's air dangerously and irreversibly polluted
within 15 years if left unchecked, according to a report by the
UCL Bartlett School of Planning and the Halcrow Group, commissioned
by the Department for Transport.
A change in the behavior of UK residents
will have more impact on achieving the CO2 emission reduction
required than advancements in technology, say the authors of
the report
Two possible policy routes the DFT could
take to reach a proposed 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030
were tested by UCL and collaborators at the Halcrow Group. The
first scenario focused on the impact of technological advances
- including hybrid cars and alternative fuels - on lowering emissions.
The second scenario considered changes in travel behavior - from
government and businesses to changes in residents' lifestyles
and travel patterns. This second scenario was far more effective.
"To move towards these behavioral
changes in the UK," said Professor Banister, "we could
expect heavy government investment in cycling and walking; lower
speed limits and national road pricing (similar to the London
congestion charge but on an environmental and emissions basis
and implemented across the whole country); better public transport
and less long distance travel, as well as new urban design to
improve accessibility to local services and facilities."
The report recommends that the government
puts emissions at the centre of its thinking, i.e. by encouraging
less commuting and more working from home; by providing better
local facilities so that trip lengths can be reduced, and by
encouraging people to shift to public transport. . .
Technological change will work in parallel,
so fuel-efficient vehicles and hybrid cars as well as alternative
fuels, such as compressed natural gas, methanol, ethanol, biodiesel
and electricity are suggested as possibilities.
Professor Banister said: "We don't
believe that the hydrogen car, for example, will be widely available
before 2030, so we don't factor it in to any of our calculations.
. . One thing is for sure: technology won't take us all the way
there by 2030 - strong action on behavioral change will be required
as well".
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/co2
NEWS, AUSTRALIA - Holidaymakers may be
ruining their favourite destinations through pollution and greenhouse
gases, making the tourism industry one of the world's worst polluters,
experts say.
A flight to that pristine beach and a few
nights in an air-conditioned hotel room, when repeated on the
mass scale of modern tourism, is all it takes to put the holiday
business on a polluting par with heavy industries.
"Tourism is unfortunately one of the
vectors of (climate) change at the moment and contributes, through
its excesses, to the process of global warming," World Tourism
Organization director general Francesco Frangialli told an international
conference on meteorology in Madrid this week.
In 2006, 842 million people took a holiday
in a foreign country and 40 per cent of them flew to their destinations.
That's 336 million people, or more than the population of the
United States, taking trips which spew greenhouse gases that
fuel global warming.
Total air transport still only accounts
for two per cent of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse
gas, in the atmosphere, but its contribution is growing and tourism
is one of the driving forces behind rising passenger numbers,
Mr Frangialli said. He said 1.1 billion tourists were expected
to take trips abroad in 2010, and 1.6 billion by 2020. . .
http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,23483,21426187-27977,00.html
AN ELECTED
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Progressive Review editor
Sam Smith and Pentagon whistleblower Ernie Fitzgerald have proposed
a constitutional amendment to provide for an independent attorney
general selected in an off-year election. The idea is to replace
independent prosecutors with a permanent watchdog on the federal
government -- someone who is not politically beholden to the
president and cannot be removed by the president.
Ernie's proposal:
1. The Attorney General of the United States
shall be elected to office in the same manner as the President
and Vice President, and shall be subject to impeachment and removal
in the same manner.
2. The first election of the Attorney General
shall take place in the first odd-numbered year after ratification
of this Amendment.
3. The Attorney General shall be elected
for a term of six years and may not succeed himself in office.
4. The Attorney General shall be paid the
same annual salary as the Vice President at the time of the Attorney
General's election.
5. On the completion of each full six-year
term the Attorney General shall receive a annual stipend for
life of 20% of his or her annual pay while in office.
6. Upon entering office, the Attomey General
shall take an oath to uphold the statutory laws and the Constitution
of the United States as originally written and amended and to
apply them equally to all parties without regard to special status
or privilege.
7. Neither the Attorney General nor his
subordinates nor any other government prosecutor shall intrude
upon inquiries or deliberations of a grand jury without an invitation
or subpoena from the grand jury.
8. All statements or declarations by government
prosecutors regarding a case at law shall be considered under
oath and subject to penalties for perjury and false statements
generally, and all prosecutors shall be subject to cross-examination
by defendants and jurors.
9. The guarantees of human rights for all
natural persons and the limitations of government powers delegated
by the people through the Constitution shall apply to the facts
of each case within the jurisdiction of the United States or
any of them without the prejudice of prior interpretations.
10. These same guarantees and limitations
on government powers shall be honored by all triers of fact and
law in all legal issues arising within the jurisdiction of the
United States or any of them.
Sam's addition . . .
.
I wouldn't mind having the AG elected by
a preferential ballot and in a publicly funded campaign. . . |