End of Year Lists

Over at Lowering the Bar:  Legal Humor. Seriously, Mr. Underhill has released his Lowering the Bar 2009 Awards showing us the "best of 2009's worst."  Here's a couple of the nominees for Best Lawsuit:

•Speaking of banks, reports in July said that Wells Fargo had sued itself in Florida. Depending on who you ask, this was either a really clever strategy or a thoroughly stupid mistake.


•Hilton v. San Francisco Int'l Airport, et al.: Stanley G. Hilton sued lots of people, including his realtors and the airport, for allegedly failing to warn him that his house was close to the airport. He blamed the noise, pollution and stress for his divorce.

•White v. Wal-Mart: Plaintiff sued for injuries she suffered in a store when a “large wild nutria” jumped out. (She panicked and ran over her own foot with a shopping cart.) White argued Wal-Mart was responsible because its employees harbored the rodent, claiming they had given it a name. “You had an encounter with Norman,” one allegedly told her.

•Elliott v. Keyes, et al.: in March, Rev. Dr. Cheryl Elliott sued the United Pentecostal Church and its pastor alleging that he had knocked her over backward while “laying hands” on participants in a church service, and did not apologize afterward. There was a similar case last year in Tennessee.

Just Laws

I didn't have to study any of Martin Luther King's writings in high school until my senior year. When my teacher put in on the syllabus, I was sure it was the same ol' "I Have a Dream" that's been done even more than Elvis impersonations. Ms. August picked Letter From a Birmingham Jail and, to my surprise, I really enjoyed it.  We studied the definition of a just law and examples laid out in the letter. I'm surprised to find myself needing that information today.

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

...

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

The same problems with law that MLK saw are not new in governments around the world. As a young adult, I just thought that those problems would never occur here. We studied the corruption in the national government under President Grant, but that was just a blip on the screen of our history. Civil rights movement was up against the abuse of law but was more of a cultural change than a corruption of our government.

The midnight vote for health-care "reform" was quite creepy to me. It felt dirty, hidden. Then the bribery in the bill started breaking across the Internet news sites. Have you seen them? The general public is so against the bill that the senators had to secure extra goodies for their vote. They needed to be able to tell their constituents that they're been taken care in an extra special way. The senator will wave his seniority flag and proclaim that such needed details wouldn't have happened without his expertise. This keeps the voters lax and fills the election coffers by those that were helped directly.

But there's a darker explanation at work here this time. A lot of time, the pork gifting has absolutely nothing to do with the bill. But in this case, the "reform" in this bill is so bad that senators were securing additional funds for their state to ensure they weren't hurt by the reforms. They don't want the health care bill to apply to them. They don't want the people and hospitals of their states to have to pay. They know it's bad, they know it's bad for hospitals and doctors, but they're going to secure goodies for their state to help alleviate the distress the bill will inflict. The rest of the country can rot as long as their state is taken care of.

And so with this bill, I'm seeing a new low. A bill that applies to thee but not to me. An unjust law that isn't applied to the whole country. A law that some people will pay for, but not others. A law that exempts some hospitals but won't exempt those hospitals that are built later.

I'm not going to be a sissy moderate and settle for order rather than justice. I sure hope other folks in other states don't look the other way. They need to ask themselves if their senator really represents what they think a senator should be. A bribe here or there, a lie here or there, bring home the bacon and I won't ask where you got from kinda guy? When you vote, I hope you're voting for somebody that you'd introduce to your mother. Somebody that you have no qualms about your teenage son spending time with. Somebody who actually represents you, a person you're willing to be associated with.

Welfare History

I just started reading A Christmas Carol today. It doesn't even belong to me, but my 13 yr old daughter. I don't know where she got it but she sure didn't buy it with her own money. She's written her name inside the front cover or I wouldn't even have known where it came from. I had forgotten that it was even a book, not a movie, and that it was written by Charles Dickens. I once started reading his book Hard Times and found it extremely boring. That being said, I remember the beginning with the evil teacher refusing to address little girl by Sissy, saying it wasn't a real name. It's strange that a small section of a book that I quit reading should be so burned in my memory.

I was only through a couple of pages in the first stave (he calls them staves, not chapters, keeping with the "carol" theme of the title) but something caught my eye: "Poor Laws". And yes, he capitalized them, making me think these were government laws about the poor. "Welfare laws in the 1800s England? Nah," I thought. I kept reading the book but, in the middle of the rising action, as Marley's ghost haunts poor Scrooge, bells ringing, chains banging, all I could think about was those dang Poor Laws.

I'm such a boring person that I looked them up to tell you about them.

It seems the Poor Laws were in fact, welfare laws. Charles Dickens wrote his book in the 1840s and they were already well established. The first Poor Laws were passed as far back as the 1500s.

From The Victorian Web:

1563 — Justices of the Peace were authorised and empowered to raise compulsory funds for the relief of the poor and, for the first time, the poor were put into different categories

those who would work but could not: these were the able-bodied or deserving poor. They were to be given help either through outdoor relief or by being given work in return for a wage.

those who could work but would not: these were the idle poor. They were to be whipped through the streets, publicly, until they learned the error of their ways.

those who were too old/ill/young to work: these were the impotent or deserving poor. They were to be looked after in almshouses, hospitals, orphanages or poor houses. Orphans and children of the poor were to be given a trade apprenticeship so that they would have a trade to pursue when they grew up.

I can't help but laugh at the relief given to the idle poor.

A flurry of laws passed in the 1500s were consolidated into the Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601. The Law authorized the raising of funds, opened alms houses and orphanages, and gave relief to people out of work. The idle poor weren't whipped though the streets anymore, but sent to workhouses. It also put responsibility on families.

Part of the 1601 Law said that poor parents and children were responsible for each other, so elderly parents were expected to live with their children for example.

I'm glad to say that my family still holds to this. It is an aberration of our society that children don't want to take care of their parents and that seniors think that they can get by on their own.

But the history of welfare goes back even further than the 1500s. In False Economy, I read about the grain welfare distributed by the Roman Empire. The grain was bought cheaply from the Egyptians, sailed across the Mediterranean to Rome, and distributed to poor Roman citizens. The cost of transporting the grain overland was astronomical and welfare was restricted only to those in the city. This, of course, led to the city suddenly surging with population of poor folks from the country. I can't remember exactly but I believe that the statistic presented was that at one time 300,000 of a city population of 1,000,000 were on grain welfare. It's simply astonishing how the Roman Senate failured to recognize the ramifications of their law.

I did ask myself "Where is the Church in all this? Wasn't the church the one that took care of the poor?" I've never really studied the transition of the care of the poor from the church to the government. Historically, the church has been in charge of the poor and The Victorian Web points out this change:

Before the Reformation, it was considered to be a religious duty for all Christians to undertake the seven corporal works of mercy. These were deeds aimed at relieving bodily distress: in accordance with the teaching of Jesus (Matthew 25 vv. 32-46) people were to

feed the hungry
give drink to the thirsty
welcome the stranger
clothe the naked
visit the sick
visit the prisoner
bury the dead

After the Reformation and the establishment of the Church of England, many of the old values and moral expectations disappeared so it became necessary to regulate the relief of poverty by law.

A change in morals, values disappearing brought about new laws and taxes to take care of the poor? That sounds strangely familiar. The great Roman Empire setting laws that cause a flood of immigrants to the city? Hmm, I've heard this song before. The fact is the Bible treats this very simply: "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" 1 Corinthians 1:20. All our wise programs fail to the simplicity that God asked of us.

In A Christmas Carol, Scrooge and his unnamed clerk receive two visitors in his business before heading home: his overly happy nephew and two gentlemen collecting donations for the poor. The nephew is the family, still taking care of, still loving his crotchety old family. The two men represent charity. The nephew puts up a great defense,

"And therefore, Uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my
pocket, I believe it has done be good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless
it!"

When confronted by the gentlemen asking for charity, Scrooge hides behind the law saying:

"Are there no prisons? ... "And the Union workhouses, are they still in
operation? ... The Treadmill and Poor Law are in full vigor, then?"

As we all know the ending already, Scrooge learns to love again. He learns to love his family, both his nephew and the lowly unnamed clerk, Bob Cratchit. He learns to give charitably, the giving of ourselves above and beyond the call of the law. We need to take care of our family, no matter how hard, and yes, good things will come of the work. We can't hide behind our social security and fica taxes, saying that we already give to charity. It seems we all have a bit of Scrooge in us and so this small book becomes a great lesson to us even today.

Breastfeeding Ban

If you haven't heard the hullabaloo, there's been a breastfeeding pic ban at the popular Facebook website which I do not participate in.

I'm all for it.

First, it's not necessarily an all-out breastfeeding ban, but the enforcement of the rules already in effect which state that nipples and aureoles are not allowed. Obviously, the rule was put into effect to regulate the obscene pictures but is being enforced across the board. The word "obscene" has a gray zone that is fought about constantly in the courts but the rule Facebook have put in place give regulators a decent measuring stick. Yes, some non-obscene photos get cut and some obscene photos still get through. Overall, it's a rule that can be enforced evenly and clearly understood by all constituents. That's definitely a positive in anybody's book.

But the whole public breastfeeding crowd drives me crazy. In the name of "ala natural", these women go around baring their breasts for all to see. No it isn't obscene and yes, it's been around since, oh, the creation of humans by God himself, but these women keep forgetting to ask themselves one last question:

Is it decent?

No! No matter the reason, it's not decent to undress yourself in public. Public breastfeeding advocates have no historical basis for their views. The only people who still hang their breasts publicly are the tribes who don't have enough knowledge and manpower to produce enough of their own clothes. You can find their pictures in National Geographic magazine by journalist who had to hunt them down in deep, dank forests. When given donation clothing though I'm not surprised to find that most of them wear it!

I feel pity for the person who buys into the argument that breastfeeding is natural and therefore, it should be public. Natural does not translate into public! Consider these other bodily functions: burping, farting, pooping, peeing, and our ladies menstrual cycle. They are all natural, in fact, needed functions of our body, but most of us wouldn't be caught dead doing them in public.

It's not like it's that hard to avoid breastfeeding in public. I managed to do it for all three of my children.