"No Going Back: Why We Cannot Restore Glass-Steagall's Segregation of Banking and Finance"

The purpose of the 1933 Banking Act--aka Glass-Steagall--was to prevent the exposure of commercial banks to the risks of investment banking and to ensure stability of the financial system. A proposed solution to the current financial crisis is to return to the basic tenets of this New Deal legislation. Senior Scholar Jan Kregel provides an in-depth account of the Act, including the premises leading up to its adoption, its influence on the design of the financial system, and the subsequent collapse of the Act's restrictions on securities trading (deregulation). He concludes that a return to the Act's simple structure and strict segregation between (regulated) commercial and (unregulated) investment banking is unwarranted in light of ongoing questions about the commercial banks' ability to compete with other financial institutions. Moreover, fundamental reform--the conflicting relationship between state and national charters and regulation--was bypassed by the Act.

Galen, divination, and the status of medicine

Galen's stories about his successes in predicting the development of an illness belong to the best-known anecdotes drawn from his writings. Brilliant pieces of self-presentation, they set Galen apart from his peers, who tried to cover up their ignorance by levelling accusations of magic and divination against their superior colleague. These accusations are usually interpreted as very real threats, as Roman law punished illicit magic and divination. Pointing out that Galen sometimes likes to present himself as a mantis and a prophet, others have suggested that the accusations against Galen and his own self-presentation indicate that the border line between medicine and religion was still fluid. Both approaches correctly draw attention to the social reality that the accusations betray: they suggest that Galen belongs to a group of healers of dubious standing that populated the empire and thus show that medicine did not have a monopoly on healing. Yet such a socio-historical approach may not be sufficient. For one thing, both explanations have their limitations. Regarding the former, it can be said that Augustus' prohibition of divination aimed at controlling prediction about the emperor and one can doubt that a widespread clampdown of all forms of divination ever was intended. A possible objection to the second view is that throughout his oeuvre Galen emphasizes his medicine as a rational undertaking, even as a science (episteme). If one takes his self-presentation as a mantis to be more than metaphorical and to indicate the not yet fully crystallized identity of medicine as a separate scientific discipline, then Galen's usual way of understanding his own craft as a science' is in need of explanation. Besides such possible objections, a different set of questions still needs to be asked: why precisely were accusations of practising magic and divination levelled against Galen and why do they recur so frequently in his writings? Why divination and not, say, poisoning

2006 Annual Report to Congress

[Excerpt] The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) was passed by Congress in 2000, and amended in 2004, to compensate American workers who put their health on the line to help fight the Cold War. Many of these workers developed cancer and other serious diseases because, in the course of doing their jobs, they were exposed to radiation and other toxic substances. They and their families have paid dearly for their role in protecting our democracy; the purpose of this program is to acknowledge their sacrifice and to compensate them in some small way for their suffering and loss. As originally enacted in 2000, EEOICPA included Part B (administered by the Department of Labor (DOL)) and Part D (administered by the Department of Energy (DOE)). When Congress repealed Part D and enacted Part E of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act in October 2004, effectively transferring responsibility for administration of contractor employee compensation from the DOE to the DOL, it also made provisions for creation of the Office of the Ombudsman for Part E. Congress directed that the Office of the Ombudsman be an independent office, located within the Department of Labor, and charged it with a three- fold mission: To conduct outreach to claimants and potential claimants; To make recommendations to the Secretary of Labor about where to locate resource centers for the acceptance and development of claims; To submit an Annual Report to Congress by February 15, setting forth the number and types of complaints, grievances and requests for assistance received by the Ombudsman, and an assessment of the most common difficulties encountered by claimants and potential claimants under Part E during the previous year. See 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-15(e). During 2006, the Office of the Ombudsman undertook outreach efforts to many claimants and potential claimants, principally focusing upon areas of the country to which we had not traveled during 2005. Throughout 2006, we also focused upon responding to the many letters, emails and telephone calls we received, requesting information or assistance, or expressing concerns about various aspects of the Part E compensation program. The concerns expressed to us ranged from issues with the statute itself, and/or the implementing regulations, policies and procedures, to general administrative issues. In responding to complaints, grievances and requests for assistance, we regularly meet with and consult the staff of the Department of Labor’s Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC). These meetings and consultations are fruitful. During the course of 2007, the Office of the Ombudsman expects to: Conduct additional outreach, traveling to meet with claimants and potential claimants to hear, firsthand, of their concerns and difficulties in obtaining Part E compensation. Respond to emails and telephone calls from claimants, potential claimants, and other members of the public. Continue our interactions with DEEOIC. This report is a short summary of the comments that this Office has received as a result of the personal contacts, the emails, and the telephone conversations from claimants erns about various aspects of the Part E compensation program