Michael Mukasey confirmed Attorney General despite controversy

Michael Mukasey will be sworn in as Attorney General today after the Senate confirmed the retired judge last night by a 53-40 vote.

His nomination had been considered at risk after a number of Democratic senators opposed Mukasey because of questions that arose from his views on waterboarding and the president's power to order electronic surveillance.

Mukasey, 66, a former federal judge from New York, told senators he considers waterboarding "repugnant," but he could not categorically say whether the technique amounts to torture, which U.S. and international law bans.

The White House issued a statement after the vote thanking the Senate for confirming Mukasey, whom Bush called "a man of strong character and integrity, with exceptional legal judgment."

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said he believed Mukasey would enforce a law banning waterboarding.

A majority of Americans consider waterboarding a form of torture, but some of those say it's OK for the U.S. government to use the technique, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released this week.

House Passes Non-discrimination Act of 1997

The House of Representatives yesterday passed a Bill aimed at eliminating discrimination against homosexual employees in the workplace. The Employment Non-discrimination Act, according to the New York Times, is being hailed by some as, “the most important civil rights legislation since the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990”; opponents of the measure claim that such legislation will only lead to unnecessary lawsuits.

In response to the passing of the Bill in the House, Senator Edward M. Kennedy has stated that he would push to quickly introduce a similar Bill in the Senate. Depending on how the legislation is phrased, some Senate Republicans feel such a Bill could pass sometime early next year.

Although the House has already passed the Bill, and there is optimism that the Senate will pass similar legislation, there remains a very real possibility that any Bill focusing on discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace will not get past the President. President Bush has already indicated that he would veto an earlier version of the Bill; although there have been amendments to the version passed by the House, many expect that these differences will not change the opinion of the President. As the Bill passed in the House 235 to 184, it is uncertain whether the necessary votes (an additional 45 votes in favor of the Bill would be required) can be swayed in order to override the expected veto.

Whether such a Bill ever becomes law remains to be seen, but it seems as if steps are being taken to assist a larger number of persons in being protected from workplace discrimination. The only troubling issue, to me and apparently a number of the House members who voted against the Bill, is the Bill’s failure to include protection against discrimination based on gender identity. According to the article, language protecting transgender and transsexual individuals from discrimination was removed as a means of bargaining between Democrats and Republicans to help ensure passage of the legislation. Such a bargaining arrangement is understandable in many situations, as often times it is better to get some of what is desired even if you cannot achieve all goals at one time. Still, whether or not the current measures passed by the House and being considered by the Senate are enacted into law, it is hopeful that there will remain a push to ensure that all employees, regardless of beliefs, background, sex, and even gender identity, are protected from discrimination in the workplace.

Hiroshima and A Good War Is Hard to Find (Part I)

Though I’m somewhat chagrined to write this, the first time I recall learning about John Hersey’s classic book Hiroshima (1946) occurred while reading David Griffith’s essay collection A Good War Is Hard to Find: The Art of Violence in America (2006) earlier this year. A Good War includes an essay on the 60th anniversary of the US atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima, and Griffith describes his reactions to Hiroshima upon first reading it in the fifth grade:

“Never before had I read a book that described the ravages of war so explicitly…It was not the complete flattening of the city that unhinged me, but the way the survivors’ bodies—the elderly, young mothers and young children—all bore the burns of invisible radiation and tremendous heat.

Never had I read a book shot through with so much guilt…I couldn’t get my mind around the idea of feeling such deep guilt simply for having lived” (47-48).

When I recently came across the “The Top 100 Works of Journalism” that New York University’s journalism department organized in 1999, I saw that Hiroshima headed the list. Remembering Griffith’s commentary, I recently read the book, and began to understand why he regards it as life-changing. It’s difficult to imagine the impact Hersey’s writing would have made upon me in the fifth grade, but his physical descriptions of the survivors are horrifying in detail: burned-off eyebrows and skin that “hung from their face and hands”; vomiting; nakedness; burns that had “made patterns” from clothing onto the skin (39-40). Father Wilhelm Kleinsorge, one of the survivors whom Hersey follows throughout the book, comes across twenty men soon after the blast whose “fluid from their melted eyes had run down their cheeks” (68). In the 1985 expanded version of the book (which is what I read), Father Kleinsorge and the other central figures of the narrative suffer as hibakusha (literally translated as “explosion-affected persons”) from radiation exposure, with random ailments—some nagging, some potentially fatal—occurring decades after the blast. Griffith is right in that Hersey describes this human damage so evocatively that, for me, it supersedes his still-remarkable descriptions of the environmental and structural damage.

Two other elements of Hiroshima stand out. The first is the difficulty that Hiroshima’s survivors experience in attempting to comprehend a bomb that at the time was radically other in nature. He uses approximations and similes to convey what the central figures saw upon explosion: to Kiyoshi Tanimoto, it “seemed a sheet of sun” (8) while Dr. Terufumi Sasaki found it to be “like a giant photographic flash” (20)—all without sound, for none of those close to the blast actually heard an accompanying roar. Later, survivors speculate on what could have caused such large-scale destruction—was it a cluster of Molotov firebombs? Gasoline? Magnesium powder that reacted with the live wires throughout the city? When they begin to hear a rumor that the cause was from an “original child bomb” that “somehow split atoms in two,” Hersey reports, “No one [initially] understood the idea or put any more credence in it than in the powdered magnesium and such things” (82). Even after Japanese scientists had precisely determined the bomb’s properties, force, and radioactive effects, relatively few citizens “even bothered to find out much about what it was like,” instead remaining in “awe” of its power (116).

Finally, as the expanded version of Hiroshima recounts the lives of Kleinsorge, Tanimoto, Sasaki, and the other central figures four decades after the blast, it is striking to read about not only the unpredictability of their radiation sickness, but also the uncertainty of living from day to day. Prejudice against hibakusha in the postwar-Hiroshima workplace grew due to concern about their potential physical limitations; an example was Hatsuyo Nakamura, a widow and mother of three, who resorted to physically taxing odd jobs to support her family although she felt consistently drained of energy. Yet even as she and other survivors were attempting to reconstruct their lives, Hersey writes that “the government made no special provision for their relief” until 1954, when the fishing boat Lucky Dragon No. 5 was exposed to radiation from American nuclear tests at Bikini Island (121). Therefore, it is compelling to follow the survivors’ attempts to simply be in a world that has become irrevocably more difficult for them, like the rest of Hiroshima, Hersey makes the most of his research in this section, and the result is remarkable.

Election Problems Continue in Cuyahoga County

With elections tomorrow, Cuyahoga County apparently continues to face problems that may cast questions of reliability upon the eventual results. The Cleveland Plain Dealer is reporting today on problems encountered by the county in performing recounts; such issues raise additional issues into the reliability of the equipment being used.

According to the article, “Cuyahoga County is 0-for-2 in conducting successful recounts this year – an ominous sign heading into Tuesday's election.” While the recounts in question of small municipal elections, the inability in conducting successful recounts could be magnified when such recounts are required in countywide races.

The failure to conduct a successful recount is being attributed to an inability to match the paper records produced with by the electronic voting equipment with the official results as reported by the machines. Some of the paper ballots examined for recount purposes were unable to be read in order to determine which candidate the voter had selected; in this case, “[t]he problem did not affect the outcome of the primary but did highlight the potential for being unable to call closer races.”

Problems with the paper ballot have been an issue since such the electronic voting machines were first used in 2006. In conducting a study last year, it was determined that “nearly 10 percent of official ballots in the May 2006 primary were ‘destroyed, blank, illegible, missing, taped together or otherwise compromised.’”

The machines in question, manufactured by Premier Election Solutions, are used in 47 Ohio counties. Still, many counties have been able to perform successful recounts, and have trained their poll workers how to properly fix any jams that may cause the paper ballot to become unreadable. Cuyahoga County has apparently not been able to do such, and have no guidance as to how to remedy unreadable ballots. Although it had been proposed that ballots be reprinted from memory cards from the touch-screen machines, this idea, presented by former Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, had been denied. Current Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, has yet to address the issue. As the Plain Dealer states, “[i]n the meantime, Cuyahoga County elections leaders will have to hold their breath.”

This is far from Cuyahoga County’s first issue with electronic voting machines. In 2006, many election locations were unable to open due to an inability to operate their electronic voting machinery; some polling places were required to turn to paper ballots. A number of other issues also arose during the 2006 election regarding the use of the electronic voting equipment. Although these issues were well publicized and covered by the media, Cuyahoga County continues to have issues that may affect the election results and cause many voters’ choices to be improperly heard, or not heard at all. With an election being held tomorrow, it is unlikely that any issues will be resolved before this election.

While this article focuses on the problems in Cuyahoga County, it is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to think that this issue and many others are still prevalent, in Ohio and the rest of the country. Whether it is the fact that many counties or states have not yet had to deal with such issues, or whether they are just not being as well publicized, the fact remains that these issues need to be remedied regarding electronic voting equipment in order to properly record votes and allow for reliable recounts when required. While the government requires the use of the equipment, states have apparently not yet found the proper machinery that will protect against voter fraud while representing the actual voice of the voters; while the state works out these “kinks” in the system, many voters may feel as if their votes are not being properly heard, and may become disenchanted with the voting process to the point that they may be discouraged from casting votes even if the issues are eventually resolved.

Waterboarding as Torture: Getting It Wrong, Getting It Right

As part of its week-in-review political analysis this past Friday, PBS’ The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer had (liberal) syndicated columnist Mark Shields and (conservative) National Review editor Rich Lowry discuss the issue of waterboarding and how it might affect the nomination process of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General. During this discussion, Lowry offered a few arguments in defense of the procedure, including the following:

--Waterboarding is complex: “I think waterboarding is an extremely complex issue, and it would have been irresponsible of Mukasey to pronounce on it before he has fully read into the program and know what it entails.”

--Waterboarding protects our soldiers and operatives: “...banning waterboarding, unfortunately, I don't think is really going to afford our guys much protection when they're caught by those sort of regimes [such as North Korea and al-Qaida] or those sort of terrorists.”

--Waterboarding isn’t really torture: “Journalists are volunteering to be waterboarded to see what it's like. You would not do that with any infamous, obvious torture techniques. Journalists wouldn't volunteer, ‘Please, pull out my fingernail. I'm really curious how that feels.’ And they're only volunteering because it's two minutes of panic. It's a horrifying procedure, but then you walk away.”

--Waterboarding provides us with valuable information: “I think it's a technique that should be used in reserve, that we should have in reserve, in extremely limited circumstances, in cases where you have very high-level al-Qaida officials who might have knowledge of ongoing plots. So you don't have time to deal with them over a period of months and you want to break them quickly, and that's exactly what happened with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [who was one of the top planners behind the 9/11 attacks].”

Watching this, I felt that at best, Lowry was presenting arguments that were naïve and muddled; at worst, he was being disingenuous. Regardless, Malcolm Nance—a counter-terrorism expert who has served as a Master Instructor for the Navy’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) program—completely dispels the above assumptions in an entry for his blog Small Wars Journal. Compare and contrast the following:

--While Lowry argues that waterboarding is “an extremely complex issue,” Nance finds it to be unequivocally simple: “Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it. It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator.”

--Concerning the issue of whether a ban on waterboarding won’t, in the words of Lowry, “offer our guys much protection” if al-Qaida or a rogue regime captures them, Nance’s argument is the exact opposite: “If you support the use of waterboarding on enemy captives, you support the use of that torture on any future American captives.” The reason why? “According to the President, this is not a torture, so future torturers in other countries now have an American legal basis to perform the acts. Every hostile intelligence agency and terrorist in the world will consider it a viable tool, which can be used with impunity. It has been turned into perfectly acceptable behavior for information finding.”

--Lowry resorts to the oversimplified and misleading argument that because journalists are volunteering to undergo a brief period of waterboarding, it isn’t torture because it isn’t equivocal to having a fingernail pulled out. As Nance points out, it is literally “controlled drowning” or “controlled death” when executed correctly because “[i]ts lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again.” Additionally, his detail about the procedure—where water forces the subject’s mouth open and fills the lungs—should leave no doubt about whether or not it represents torture.

--Finally, Lowry’s use of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s confession to justify waterboarding’s usefulness doesn’t fly with Nance: “Of course, when you waterboard you get all the magic answers you want -because remember, the subject will talk. They all talk! Anyone strapped down will say anything, absolutely anything to get the torture to stop. Torture. Does. Not. Work.”

Is a talking Jesus doll a good idea?

A talking Jesus doll is being manufactured by Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Co.’s Biblical doll unit, One2Believe, and quotes 5 bible verses. The line of dolls is called “Messengers of Faith” and is intended to be teaching tools for parents and teachers.

The dolls have been on sale via the Internet for over two years, but it wasn’t until Wal-Mart began putting them on store shelves in the middle of October 2007 that people started to really take notice. This is the first time that the retail heavyweight has carried a full line of religious toys.

The battery-powered, button-activated doll is able to recite a handful of different bible verses and the story of Jesus feeding the multitudes with five loaves and two fish. It also comes with a booklet giving parents tips on how to shape a child's faith.

Whether Jesus and the other faith based dolls will be big sellers remains to be seen, but one thing is for sure, the dolls have been selling out fast since the controversy over whether Wal-Mart should carry them started.

I’ve seen children play with other action figures; Jesus may suffer more abuse than he did at the hands of Pontius Pilate. I have to wonder if this wasn’t as bad an idea as the “Pope Soap on a Rope.”

Update on Colbert and the '08 Election

It has just been reported that South Carolina has rejected Stephen Colbert's bid to appear on the Presidential primary ballot in the state. For more, you can read here. Even so, the importance of the issues written about earlier today (the legal ramifications and the interest drawn by Colbert) do not change as questions remain as to potential future runs by television personalities (or an extended run by Colbert), and the importance of bringing the public to the polls persists.

Stephen Colbert and the ’08 Election

Today, Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report has filed the necessary papers to be included in the Presidential Primary election in South Carolina. According to an Associated Press article, Colbert filed and paid the required fee to be placed on the ballot as a Democratic candidate just before noon today. It is now up to officials whether his name appears on the ballot or not. In order to appear on the ballot, “Colbert will have to show that he’s ‘nationally visible’ and that he’s spent time campaigning in the state” (from the New York Post).

Colbert’s “run” at the Presidency has caused debate within the Democratic Party, the party he hopes to run under. Democratic official Waring Howe has already told CNN that, “Over my dead body will Colbert’s name appear on the ballot.” On the other hand, as Democratic Party Vice Chairman Charles Hamby has told CNN that, "We know he won't be president. He knows that," “But it will bring a lot of people into the party."

Aside from this split within the party, there is debate as to how much Colbert’s run is detracting from the “real” candidates. Although, at the time, he at best will only appear on the South Carolina ballot, his celebrity status is causing a somewhat large section of the population, within the state and outside of it, to focus on Colbert as a candidate. Many fear that this will detract from people focusing on the viable candidates for the election and not hearing the platform the eventual Democratic Presidential candidate is supporting.

As a legal issue, many election law experts wonder whether Colbert is violating campaign rules. “In general, federal law prohibits corporations such as Viacom Inc., which owns Comedy Central, from using corporate funds to advocate directly for a candidate”. With Colbert using his Comedy Central program to further his “campaign”, some wonder whether this violates federal law. Viacom, some argue, may be guilty of providing illegal contributions of air time in support of a candidate.

Viacom may also run afoul of the “equal time rule”. Much as NBC’s position was when Fred Thompson chose to run, Viacom may face a requirement of allowing each additional Presidential candidate an equal amount of time as they allow Colbert in order to present their positions, approximately 20 minutes per night four nights each week. While NBC chose to pull the Law & Order episodes in which Fred Thompson appears, TNT continues to run these episodes at the risk of drawing scrutiny from the Federal Elections Commission. TNT seems to be testing the theory that this “equal time rule” only applies to broadcast television; if this is in fact the case, Viacom, who only runs the show on the cable network, may not be in violation of the rule after all (although, in the case of Fred Thompson he is arguably not the star of Law & Order, nor does he take his time on air to further his campaign, unlike Colbert).

In all likelihood, it is not probable that people will have a chance to vote for Colbert, either in South Carolina or elsewhere in the United States, and as such any potential issues faced by Viacom will become moot. Still, by his choosing to “run”, he has definitely brought several election law issues to the forefront, and has caused a greater interest in the current Presidential race. As Charles Hamby indicates, not only will Colbert bring more people to the Democratic Party, but I believe he will bring more people to think about the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election. Hopefully, once Colbert’s “run” is over, the interest he has raised, both in the issues and the pending election itself, will not disappear.

Additional information from: Los Angeles Times, the Slate

Additional analysis of the legal issues can be found here.

Jim Webb and Prison Reform

I was set to comment on a short but thought-provoking piece that Bradford Plumer had written for The New Republic concerning Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and his efforts to address the need for prison reform, a cause that remains quite unpopular among politicians. Then the magazine threw a curveball when they redesigned their site earlier this month, and I received the dreaded “Error 404” message when I re-checked the link. So to begin, here’s a key excerpt of what Plumer wrote, where he is covering a subcommittee meeting that Webb is co-hosting:

“Reentry programs [for prisoners] are one thing; talk of drastically reducing prison sentences, however, is still a radical notion for Congress…Webb, however, could be a convincing crusader here--after all, it's hard to accuse a man who once tried to bring a gun into the Senate of being a typical bleeding-heart liberal. Indeed, Webb emphasizes several times [during the meeting] that he's not soft on crime, and, as if to prove it, reiterates his desire to ‘break the backs of gangs’ and so forth. ‘But,’ he adds at the end, ‘I do hope my colleagues can better understand the impact of what we're doing here.’ ” By the time he says this, though, he's the only politician left in the room.”

There are two essays that I think help explicate this a bit. The first—Jeff Sharlet’s profile of Webb for Rolling Stone from June (full version here)—affirms why Plumer’s assessment of Webb as a potential “convincing crusader” for prison reform is likely accurate. Sharlet reminds us that Webb’s slim and unlikely victory in Virginia’s senatorial race last year was in large part due to his opponent George Allen’s gaffes, including the now-infamous “Macaca” comment. The “break the backs of gangs” comment is perhaps indicative of a self-consciousness regarding social issues and what will continue to help maintain his electoral support. Nevertheless, Webb is a hard-nosed “old school populist”—think William Jennings Bryan—who “loves war” and still carries many of the same political views as he did while Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. As a result, he has some freedom to pursue alternatives to incarceration while avoiding charges of being “soft” or too liberal—though that pursuit, as Plumer indicates in the above passage, will more than likely be a lonely one.

The other essay is Mark Mauer’s “The Hidden Problem of Time Served in Prison” for Social Research, which Plumer discussed this month on his blog. Of particular note is Mauer’s argument that the average length of prison sentences has markedly increased since 1990, which has primarily contributed to rises in both the prison population and system costs. Moreover, increasing sentence length does not act as a deterrent and has no bearing on recidivism rates. As Plumer notes:

“In theory, of course, you can lock up a prisoner for five or ten years, until he "ages out" of his prime crime-committing years, and that could reduce recidivism. But doing that for everyone would mean quadrupling our $60 billion-per-year prison system, and I trust no one needs to explain why that would be a horrible idea.”

Bearing this in mind as well as the fixture of tough-on-crime stances within politics, Webb faces an uphill battle with his reform efforts, but the fact that he is even concerned about the issue is rather noteworthy.

Voter ID and Muslim Women

The Jurist had this report yesterday on proposed Canadian legislation that could greatly affect Muslim women and their rights to vote. Canada’s Conservative Party has introduced a Bill, Bill C-6, and the provincial government of Quebec has indicated that legislation will be introduced that will require Muslim women to lift their veils to vote in order to be allowed access to the voting booths. While such legislation has not been introduced in the United States (yet), Canada’s legislation presents issues that may arise with the United States’ recent push towards more voter identification requirements.

According to the article, the issue over Muslim women and their verification of identity is a result of an incident that happened in Quebec in March of this year. Quebec’s chief electoral officer refused to allow some Muslim women to vote without first viewing their faces to verify their identity; as would be expected, this drew criticism from Muslim rights groups and was eventually overruled by Elections Canada. At the time of this incident, the need to view the faces of potential voters was unclear, and the government now wants to clear any uncertainty over the issue.

As is the concern in the United States, Canada is attempting to prevent voter fraud by verifying the identities of voters. If passed, Muslim women will be taken into another room, where they can privately lift their veils for election officials. In this way, the election official can match the identification provided with the actual face of the potential voter.

The United States has not yet officially dealt with this issue, leaving questions both as to how election officials are to deal with the matter if no legislation or rules are created, and the religious freedoms of these Muslim women if legislation and rules are indeed introduced. First, election officials throughout the country are attempting to require proof of identity before the person is allowed to vote. Although much of the legislation requiring the presentation of identification is being challenged, such proof is still required in several states. However, even if identification is required to be provided in these states, hypothetically, and this may be the argument of the Canadians attempting to pass the above legislation, any person wearing a veil can present any identification without fear of having their right to vote challenged, increasing the possibility of voter fraud.

While there may be some valid reasons to what the Canadians are proposing, I believe that the second question, the question of religious freedom, presents a stronger argument for not requiring these women to show their faces. According to the Jurist article, Canada is already writing in exceptions for persons with facial bandages by allowing them to vote if they present two forms of identification or have a qualified voter with them who can vouch for their identification. If such exceptions can be made for persons not expressing their religious freedoms, the issue of the importance of requiring Muslim women to raise their veils becomes even more questionable.

Canada and the United States obviously have many differences; however, it appears that voter fraud is an issue being confronted by both countries. This legislation being proposed by Canada further demonstrates the problems with requiring the presentation of voter identification, problems not yet confronted and/or addressed by the United States. While the United States deals with challenges to their voter identification regulations based on challenges that such requirements constitute a “poll tax”, it will interesting to watch the situation in Canada in preparation for potential new challenges to our election process in the United States.

The Wire and David Simon’s Artistic Vision

Margaret Talbot has an excellent profile on David Simon, the creator of HBO’s drama The Wire for the October 22 Arts Issue of The New Yorker. Over its first four seasons, The Wire has established a reputation as a critical darling—more than one reviewer has spoken of it in terms of among the best dramas in television history—even as its audience (in the four million range) is modest compared to intra-network shows The Sopranos and even Big Love. Talbot demonstrates how much of this success traces back to Simon, a former crime reporter for the Baltimore Sun with a tenaciously realistic/cynical view of life and a confidence that borders on hubris. Additionally, Talbot writes that he “is an authenticity freak,” and his attention to detail, from the filming that takes place throughout Baltimore to the “ghetto dialogue” of the characters helps set the show apart from its contemporaries:

“ ‘The Wire’ débuted in June, 2002, looking more or less like a cop show. But the differences were important. It spent as much time with the lawbreakers as it did with the law enforcers. And you didn’t see the suspects through the cops’ eyes only—you saw them through their own as well. The drug trade emerged as its own intricate bureaucracy, a hierarchy that subtly mirrored that of the police department. Moreover, ‘The Wire’ did not rely on the jumpy handheld-camera shots and the blurry ‘swish pans’ that a lot of network cop shows had adopted. The camera remained locked, for minutes at a time, on people talking. And the story unfolded at a slower pace, too, which meant that many of the scenes elaborated on the characters and the power structures they moved within, rather than lay the pipe of plot.”

All of these aspects are notable, but having watched the first three seasons (and preparing to soon watch the fourth), I find the second half of the last sentence to be especially important. As each season concentrates upon a different aspect of Baltimore—first the street-level drug trade, then struggling longshoremen, individuals seeking power to make city-level changes, and finally the failings of the school system—it allows the viewer more context than one would ever imagine on a television show. As Talbot writes, this “sociological precision” allows Simon to present larger themes about how America’s transition to a service and technology-oriented economy continues to, in his words, “ ‘devalue human beings.’ ” The show’s storylines vividly convey this bleakness—its characters often make bad decisions that affect their lives, but their surrounding environment negatively affects them as well.

The result of this complexity is that there aren’t easy emotionally payoffs or neatly resolved morality tales in The Wire; on more than one occasion, I’ve spoken aloud in surprise or frustration even though I watch the show alone. Yet if we believe Picasso’s famous quote that “Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth,” then The Wire presents a particularly useful form of storytelling that challenges us to reconsider our views on several topics—the effectiveness of social institutions, the circumstances of the urban poor, the impact of the War on Drugs—while also rewarding us with remarkable acting and narratives. That it does so is largely a testament to David Simon’s artistic vision.

Native Americans purging tribal rolls

Native Americans are in the process of redefining tribal identity that is causing great concern among Native people.

David Wilkins, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota and a member of North Carolina's Lumbee Tribe, traces most purges to four factors: internal political squabbles, stricter racial requirements for membership, punishment for gang or drug-related crime and, most often, during debates over sharing casino profits.

In Oliphant v Suquamish Indian Tribe (435 U.S. 191), a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court ruling said the federal government should not intervene in most tribal membership disputes, leaving appeals up to the tribes.

According to the National Indian Gaming Commission, tribal casinos generated $25 billion in revenue last year. Tribes often split the profits by making payments to members. Fewer members can mean a larger paycheck for those left.

There are organizations that can help displaced Native people. The American Indian Rights and Resources Organization is a group that lobbies against expelling tribe members.

It's not clear how many people have been removed from tribes in the last few years. There are 562 federally recognized tribes, and tribal governments are not required to report citizenship decisions. But the number is in the thousands.

In Michigan, the Saginaw Chippewa want to remove about a tenth of their 2,700 members due to rules that require them to be at least one-quarter Indian. Critics said it's an attempt to cut casino payments.

The Cherokee Nation voted in March to deny citizenship to an estimated 2,800 descendants of tribal slaves.

In Rhode Island, the issue has become political. In the Narragansett election, Paulla Dove Jennings, a historian, is running an underdog campaign against the incumbent, Matthew Thomas, saying it is unfair to take people's identities as Narragansett away.

Clearly, there is a power struggle going on. The tribes have the power and the displaced do not.

Milton Caniff: "The Rembrandt of the Comic Strip"

A retrospective of Milton Caniff’s work will be on display at The Ohio State University Cartoon Research Library’s 9^th Festival of Cartoon Art, October 25^th-27^th, beginning at 11:00 AM. More than a dozen of the nation's top cartoonists, scholars and comic professionals will gather in downtown Columbus to celebrate Caniff's life and his work.

The Cartoon Research Library, which houses the works of many well-known cartoonists, got its start with Caniff's 1977 bequest of his papers.

Lucy Shelton Caswell said Caniff is one of the reasons the Cartoon Research Library exists. As the founding donor and a goodwill ambassador for the library, he persuaded other cartoonists to donate their work.

Underground cartoonist Frank Stack said he believes Caniff is the "key figure in the development of storytelling and artistic development of the comic strip" and he raised the bar for what a comic strip could be.

Caniff is best known for comic strips Terry and the Pirates, & Steve Canyon. Many cartoonists point to Caniff's works as an influence on their own work and his impact on the comic strip as a form of art.

Milton Caniff has a special place in my heart for the character he created when he was a boy scout. “Kit Cricket” is the character’s name, and here is the story behind his creation:

It was Milt Caniff, who was a scout at the time and later became a nationally known cartoonist of “Steve Canyon” fame, who submitted the name Cricket Holler (in 1921). Kit Cricket, the character we often see around the Miami Valley Council (Boy Scouts) and who is posted on the gate at Woodland Trails, is Milt’s creation, and he created a rather elaborate story about Kit’s defense of Cricket Holler from the malevolent “hodags.” You can read the story in “Fun and Service.”

Every time I take my son to camp at Cricket Holler it makes me smile to see Kit Cricket guarding the gates of the camp.

For registration or more information about speakers and the Cartoon Research Library, go to cartoons.osu.edu.

Continued Use of Lethal Injection in Question

While the United States Supreme Court considers the chemical composition used to administer lethal injections, many jurisdictions are staying pending cases involving the use of the same. According to SCOTUSblog, the Court had agreed to consider the constitutionality of the current lethal injection formula used in 36 states. Such consideration comes as a result of the Court’s decision to review the case of Baze v. Rees (Supreme Court docket number 07-5439).

A total of 17 states have suspended any executions by lethal injection until such time as the United States Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the chemical composition used. The only execution scheduled to be held before the spring of next year is in Mississippi, where the state is awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.

While states such as Alabama, in the case of Siebert v. Allen, are staying execution by lethal injection without an explicit ruling by the United States Supreme Court, Mississippi is awaiting a ruling in the case of Berry v. Mississippi (Supreme Court docket numbers 07A334 and 07-7275). The Mississippi Supreme Court has refused to stay the execution, scheduled for 6:00 P.M. next Tuesday, based on the fact the United States Supreme Court has not yet indicated the need to stay all executions by lethal injection; the Mississippi Supreme Court has indicated it would comply if the U.S. Supreme Court issues a stay of the execution in this case.

Meanwhile in Texas, the Court of Criminal Appeals is drawing criticism for staying a September 25 execution when a rushed filing was delayed past the court’s closing time due to computer issues. The same day the Court refused to accept any late filing in the case is the same day the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear Baze. The New York Times is reporting that any motion to stay the execution could not be brought with the U.S. Supreme Court due to the fact that Court of Criminal Appeals never issued a definitive ruling that could then be appealed. The question of whether the execution would have been stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court will never be answered, but Berry may provide further insight into the issue.

The decision in Baze will almost certainly alter the landscape of lethal injection executions in the United States. While the ultimate change may be as minor as reformulating the chemical composition used, it is already creating effects on states that had executions scheduled and the prisoners involved, and causing many to think about the issues associated with such executions. As we await a final ruling, it will also be interesting to watch cases such as Berry, which may indicate the direction the Court is heading, or at the least send a message to states regarding staying executions until a final decision in Baze is rendered. A stay of execution in Berry may be sufficient to persuade states, such as Texas, that lethal injection executions should be halted without the need to obtain case-by-case rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Sony Reader: The Great Hope for E-books?

Not that long ago I argued that books are resistant to digitization due to a combination of convenience, experience and cost factors. This week, I first learned about the Sony Reader, and initially began to wonder about the soundness of my argument. The product specifications that Sony details on its official webpage are impressive: the Reader is smaller and lighter (9 ounces) than a standard paperback, yet contains a six-inch screen and a memory slot to expand beyond its capacity of eighty e-books, and can also store other electronics such as PDFs and mp3s. In writing about his initial experiences with the Reader, Frank Wilson of the Philadelphia Enquirer notes perhaps the most winsome feature:

“…the crucial question is a fairly simple one: How readable is it? The principal reason e-books haven't caught on is that print on a screen hasn't been able to compete with ink on paper when it comes to readability. E-books have, for example, proved less than ideal for reading in full sunlight.

“The Sony Reader seems to have solved that problem. I've read mine in full summer sunlight on my patio. I've read it in morning and evening twilight on the sofa in my living room. I've read it in bed in ordinary lamp light. And I've read it on the bus and on the subway. It's easily as readable as newsprint, and sunlight is certainly no problem. In fact, the brighter the light, the easier it is to read.”

If the experiential factors of reading are what primarily limit the current market for e-books, then creating a device that allows for easier reading in what are normally less-than-ideal viewing conditions is a step in the right direction. Yet Wilson cites plenty of drawbacks: a general user-unfriendly software interface (no indices or search feature and a confusing help guide), a limited selection available through Sony’s e-book store, and a high expense for both the Reader ($235) and the e-books (same price as hardback versions, which is an incredibly poor decision). At four to six hours per charge, the battery life is so-so. And then there’s Sony, whose consumer reputation could be better.

Even if we set these issues aside, the Sony Reader doesn’t fundamentally address the issues of e-book technology. David Haskin of PC Advisor finds that in addition to the fact that e-books lack a standardized format (leading to compatibility issues):

“…the devices [for e-books] themselves just aren't good enough yet. Some people find them unwieldy; others say they're difficult to use. And for many people, there's just no replacing the old-fashioned, reassuring feel of paper” (emphasis mine).

Wilson thus demonstrates that the Sony Reader is difficult to use, and that while it replicates the look of book paper, it isn’t an equal replacement for the tactile sensations of turning a page.

I think the “old-fashioned” book is safe for now.

FBI Attempts to Reconstruct Terrorism Cases

The Los Angeles Times is reporting today on the FBI’s efforts to ensure that sufficient evidence, which is neither too controversial nor inadmissible, is available for upcoming war crime tribunals involving accused Al Qaeda leaders. With the recent publicity over the treatment of such war criminals and accusations of improper treatment by the CIA, bordering on torture, the FBI and the United States government want to ensure that the trials are solely about the persons on trial, not the United States agencies that collected evidence.

The FBI is reconstructing cases due to fears that much of the collected evidence will not be admissible as many of the prisoners on trial had be held incommunicado overseas, allowing the CIA to use coercive means to collect evidence. Much, if not all, of this evidence would not be admissible in a United States court of law, and it is thought that the military commissions will take a similar stance.

Efforts to collect additional evidence began after legal rulings against an accused Al Qaeda leader indicated that other suspected members would be provided with a forum for trial where evidence would be presented. According to the article, “[t]he FBI's efforts appear in part to be a hedge in case the commissions are ruled unconstitutional or never occur, or the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay is closed.” If any of these situations would arise, detainees would be released, transferred to military custody elsewhere, or tried in U.S. federal courts where sufficient evidence would be required to charge them with terrorism. If the U.S. attempts to try these individuals in federal court for terrorism, any evidence obtained by coercion would be disallowed.

As presented as part of a previous post, experts have stated that torture or coercion provide reliable information. This is evidenced by the U.S. court’s refusal to allow evidence obtained by coercion to be presented at trial. Due to the CIA’s use of such methods, the FBI is now attempting, and has been for approximately the past two years, to rectify this issue and collect evidence that will be deemed reliable and therefore admissible. After the mistreatment of these detainees to obtain evidence to prove their guilt, it is likely that the evidence obtained will not be usable and the FBI will most likely have a difficult time now reconstructing the cases and obtaining admissible reliable evidence. As such, it now appears that the methods used not only harmed the prisoners but may also reduce the chances of the U.S. obtaining convictions for terrorism against these persons.

Mike Adams and Evangelical Faith in Higher Education

In August, I wrote an entry about Andrew Paquin, an assistant professor of global studies at Colorado Christian University whose use of “progressive” texts in the classroom led to his dubious dismissal. The Chronicle of Higher Education now reports on a different and somewhat inverted scenario: Mike Adams, an associate professor of criminology at University of North Carolina at Wilmington, was recently denied a full professorship even after what he felt was a solid teaching and scholarship background. The rub? As Thomas Bartlett writes, Adams is arguing that his Christian faith is what led to the university’s decision. Additionally, his lawsuit against the university also claims political bias as a factor in the university’s decision:

“About the same time Mr. Adams became a Christian, the former liberal also became a conservative. He joined the Republican Party in 1999. He later started writing columns for townhall.com, a right-wing Web site. He has been a guest on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, among others.

“The examples of discrimination mentioned in his lawsuit tend to be about his political views rather than his faith. He claims, for instance, that a former department head asked him to tone down his columns, to make them less caustic.”

Bartlett’s article is therefore an attempt to answer the question of whether conservatively-oriented evangelicals like Adams actually encounter hostility (or even discrimination) within academe because of their beliefs. It’s a thorny issue, and Bartlett has done his homework: Randall Balmer and George Marsden in particular are both top-rate scholars, and as evangelicals, neither of them has been shy about sharing opinions regarding their personal faith. Marsden’s response is especially striking. While I haven’t read The Soul of the American University (though I would like to), I’m aware that the book is an attempt to argue in favor of the days when judging religious values was a central component of higher education.* For him to place the onus on how a professor presents his or her beliefs is perhaps telling with regard to this particular case, where Adams has clearly forwarded some quite aggressive opinions in his body of work.

The story becomes even more interesting when we consider Andy Guess of Inside Higher Ed’s account from April:

“…colorful details, as well as plenty of documentation, add weight to an otherwise routine accusation. Take a department chair’s alleged comment that her ‘image of a perfect job candidate is a lesbian with spiked hair and a dog collar.’ Or the professor’s shock tactics on [conservative web community] Townhall.com, where a recent political column, musing on a university’s alleged tolerance for terrorists versus homophobes, was titled “How to bomb a gay bath house.”

*See Stephen Prothero’s excellent book Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know—and Doesn’t, page 140.

Revisiting Radiohead

In the week since Radiohead’s groundbreaking digital release of their new album In Rainbows without a fixed price, the initial results have been quite favorable. Music reviewers have formed a consensus in their praise of the album, using terms such as “masterpiece” and “primo.” Perhaps more importantly, the album seems to be selling incredibly well, though use of a weasel word like “seems” is necessary due to shaky supporting evidence; the earliest reported figure of 1.2 million sales originates from a “source close to the band.” Even if this total is high, the response to Radiohead’s strategy indicates that fans are favorably disposed to paying what they want for a digital album.

Yet there’s a less-considered benefit to Radiohead’s strategy that Mark Pytlik raises in his review of In Rainbows for Pitchfork:

“Like many music lovers of a certain age, I have a lot of warm memories tied up with release days. I miss the simple ritual of making time to buy a record. I also miss listening to something special for the first time and imagining, against reason, the rest of the world holed up in their respective bedrooms, having the same experience. Before last Wednesday, I can't remember the last time I had that feeling.”

Pytlik hits the nail on the head. Though I have no idea how old he is, it’s apparent that the “music lovers of a certain age” to whom he refers are those old enough to have begun music collections before the rise of Napster and peer-to-peer downloading methods around 2000. For all of the advantages associated with the digital music era that originates from that point—instant gratification, portable devices that can contain one’s entire music library, the ability to preview and access album material before release dates—I think a lot of music lovers (myself included) have probably lost some of the anticipation and ritual that used to be a part of buying new music. When I was younger, I remember tracking the days before a major release, and how excited I would get just by opening the shrink wrap on a newly-purchased cassette or CD. While listening, I would pore over album art and liner notes, trying to memorize lyrics so that I could sing along accurately.

Those elements of my musical experience haven’t completely disappeared, but they’ve certainly decreased, and my access to digital music is a large reason why. It’s easy for me or for anybody with basic computer knowledge to preview “leaked” albums before their release date. It’s cheaper to subscribe to eMusic and download certain independent-label albums there, even when I want the CDs. And with the exception of being in the car (where I have a CD player), it’s more convenient to use my iPod and computer as my primary playback devices. I’d suspect that Pytlik has made similar types of acquiescence (especially considering the volume of music that he listens to for reviews), as has many of us in the past few years. The paradox is that while we continue to gain convenience and access in ways that we never could have during the pre-digital era, we also are losing some of the habits that can make music listening more enjoyable and tangible.

Radiohead’s certainly can’t change this process, but they allowed us to recapture some of the value behind what Pytlik mentions: being excited for an impending release, making time for it, and sharing in a type of communal musical act. In my eyes, that makes their achievement all the more remarkable.

State Regulation of Illegal Immigration

While President Bush and Congress continue to debate immigration legislation, the Washington Post today has an article reporting on the laws being passed by individual states in an attempt to delineate the rights of immigrants in their states. As states are taking it upon themselves to pass this legislation, the fear seems to be that federal standards will never be possible; the longer states are required to regulate immigration issues on their own, most often enacting legislation different or entirely contrary to other states’ legislation, the harder it will be to create uniform rules.

According to the article, 182 bills in 43 states were passed in the first half of 2007, more than doubling the 2006 total of state-enacted immigration laws. Some issues being addressed by this legislation include: the issuance of driver’s licenses; employment background checks to determine an immigrant’s status; and, the “transportation” and “harboring” of illegal immigrants.

While some see this influx of state-enacted immigration legislation as problematic, some argue that states have no other choice but to act while the federal government continues to work on uniform federal legislation. As the federal government continues to debate the best solution, states are left with the reality of how to handle the illegal immigration issues that are affecting their cities and towns. States cannot just sit back and wait as illegal immigrants continue to enter into their borders.

Still others see the state-enacted legislation as an opportunity to see what will work best when establishing federal regulations. With a large variety of state immigration laws, the national government will be able to observe and study what seem to be the best procedures for handling illegal immigration issues. The only issue with such a “laboratory” approach is that it takes time; if too much time is taken to observe how states handle illegal immigration and what is working, it would seem that even more disparate state immigration laws would be passed making it even harder to pass the uniform federal rules desired.

The issue of illegal immigration is certainly one that is garnering much attention. As evidenced by the increase in immigration related legislation passed already this year, it seems that states are eager to establish laws that will remedy the problems associated with the issue. However, as long as states continue to make disparate and sometimes contrary laws, it is expected that illegal immigration problems will continue, just perhaps in states with more lenient laws. As such, it appears that a uniform set of laws created by the federal government will be the best solution to alleviate the issue of illegal immigration; however, the longer the federal government takes in passing such rules, the harder it will be to unify the states under this single set of rules.

Amazonmp3 and Thinking Past DRM

With Amazon having recently released a beta version of their digital downloading service Amazonmp3, Nate Anderson of Ars Technica presents a nicely balanced analysis of its functionality, as well as how it stacks up to iTunes and other competitors. Although iTunes is now the third-largest music retailer in the U.S., it has stuck to the same restrictions with which it first began: for $0.99 per track, you receive a file in AAC format that is incompatible with non-iPod music players, a relatively low bitrate of 128 kbps (which negatively affects audio quality), and a digital rights management policy that limits file sharing. Conversely, Amazonmp3 sells files that work on virtually any music player, possess a higher bitrate (256 kbps), and—in a first for a service offering both major-label and independent-label music—are DRM-free. They also have variable pricing, with top-selling tracks going for $0.89 apiece and top albums for $8.99, a full dollar lower than iTunes.

These are all quite positive changes, but besides astutely pointing out kinks in the pricing structure (“That's a pretty decent deal [at $8.99 for top albums], but it makes you wonder how Amazon thinks it is going to sell Wilson Phillips' Greatest Hits for $11.99”), Anderson elaborates upon the limitations that remain even without DRM:

“There are a few restrictions. One of the biggest is that there's no redownloading of tracks; you'd better make a backup, because if you lose a song, you'll have to purchase it again to get another copy. Such a policy has an obvious analogue to Amazon's CD sales. If you purchase a Tim McGraw CD and your NPR-loving uncle ‘accidentally’ cracks the disk in two, you are out of luck; Amazon won't send you another copy. In this sense, then, music downloads are treated like physical property.

But they are not property. In fact, what you have purchased is only a "non-exclusive, non-transferable license" to each song. Because you have not actually purchased something physical, Amazon's terms of service explicitly forbid both re-selling and lending. With a CD, of course, you can do both quite legally. Digital downloads can be cheaper and more convenient, but there's no legal way to extract value from them when your tastes in music change. Caveat emptor.”

As Anderson notes, Amazon is partially responsible for these restrictions. The independent music-based download service eMusic, for example, allows its customers to redownload tracks even if it’s on a different computer. eMusic is a monthly subscription service and is therefore operates slightly differently than Amazon, but it probably wouldn’t be difficult for Amazon to promote a more user-friendly policy in this regard.

Yet Anderson has raised an issue that goes beyond Amazon. Once of the inherent advantages of CDs has been the ability to resell them or exchange them as credit for new CDs. During the 1990s, this was mutually beneficial for both consumers (who generally lacked the opportunity to buy individual songs) and many music retailers (who developed a revenue source that guaranteed a high profit margin). Even as CD sales have shifted to the Internet, sites such as eBay (along with sister site Half.com) and Second Spin allow consumers to update and refine their collections. In contrast, virtual music files such as mp3s obviously change the rules: they take up space, but aren’t actually tangible like previous commercial forms of recorded music. There currently isn’t a way to informally sell or exchange mp3s for purchase credit like CDs, so the only way to use one’s (unrestricted) digital music as a means of accessing new digital music is through illegal file sharing methods which major-label music companies and retailers such as Amazon have aggressively sought to discourage through DRM (and, in the case of the former, lawsuits).

In short, DRM is not a user-friendly technology, and we should applaud Amazon for developing a service that doesn’t rely upon it. This is only a partial victory, though, for as a virtual music format, mp3 files still posses an inherent drawback that allows labels and retailers to define the boundaries of “fair use.” Consequently, we are left with two questions: 1) whether mp3 files and other virtual music formats can ever become “property” like CDs, and 2) if so, whether anyone can develop a method for the legal exchange and reselling of virtual files.