US splits from UN Human Rights Council

Human Rights Watch believes that a decision by the United States to disengage from the UN Human Rights Council amounts to an abandonment of human rights defenders and victims.

The United States has decided not to participate at the Council unless it is absolutely necessary and it feels compelled to do so by “matters of deep national interest.” Although not a member of the Human Rights Council, the United States had participated as an observer at the council since its inception in 2006.

Juliette de Rivero, Geneva advocacy director at Human Rights Watch said, “Whatever the council’s problems, this decision is a victory for abusive states and a betrayal of those fighting for their rights worldwide.”

I won’t claim to know if this was a good idea or not, but several of the other blogs that I’ve read today that are commenting on this story definitely believe that “it is about time.” However, even with all its faults, I have to wonder if leaving the UN Human Rights Council behind with a “never look back” attitude is going to end up as an abandonment of human rights defenders and victims. It is ironic that the United States never fully committed to aiding the Council, but used the substantial weaknesses of the Council as justification for us distancing ourselves from it.

Civics Education Through Video Games

With recent attacks leveled at the United States court systems, Sandra Day O’Connor yesterday revealed a plan to counter accusations that “judges are ‘godless’ activists” – educational video games. By creating a video game on how the court system works, it is hoped that “public ignorance” will be curbed and such attacks will cease “on what should be an independent institution”.

In presenting the project, O’Connor stated that she has “become increasingly concerned about vitriolic attacks by some members of Congress, some members of state legislatures and various private interest groups ... on judges". Of these attacks, O’Connor stated concerns over Supreme Court nominees being questioned by Congress as to how they would rule on specific issues. With nominees being subjected to this type of questioning, there is pressure being placed on potential Justices that makes it “difficult to achieve fair and impartial judgments from the judges who are serving,"

The aim of this video game is to educate children on the three branches of government and how they interact. Through this education, O’Connor is hopeful that the independence of the Judicial Branch will be restored as the correct understanding of the court system will be instilled on the previously uneducated public.

Once finished, the game will be freely available at http://www.ourcourts.org/ and will be broken down into two segments. The first segment is intended for those in Junior High (7th – 9th grade) to be used as a supplement to class materials. The other segment will be aimed at younger children and is intended to be used in the children’s free time.

According to the article, “studies showed children spend around 40 hours a week using media, including computers, television, videogames or music.” However, it seems unlikely that a large portion, if any, of this time is attributed to freely choosing to play educational games. To reach the intended market, especially in the second segment of the game where it is to be used in the children’s free time, the court system video game will have to overcome much competition. With the number of freely available options at their disposal, children most often will choose to do something entertaining rather than educational. If the court system game cannot be both, it is unlikely to succeed.

As to the first segment of the game, intended to supplement in-class materials, there appears to be less obstacles to overcome. By making the use of this game a requirement, it will obviously be used. However, many schools still do not have access to Internet ready computers, or have insufficient computers for an entire class; as such, these groups will not be able to benefit from the additional education opportunity. For those students who are able to use the game, they may be more interested in the “game” aspect rather than the “educational” aspect and see this more as a break from learning, not a reinforcement of what they are learning.

The goal of ensuring that people know the processes and workings of the United States court system is admirable and necessary. The independence and non-partisanship of the courts is a key element to their effective operation, and education can only help to ensure this. However, attempting to provide this education through educational games seems risky in the obstacles that need to be overcome to ensure its effectiveness. Until the site is actually up and running, the true value of the game remains to be seen.

U.S. Troops Allegedly Proselytizing Christianity in Iraq

In an article printed yesterday, it was reported that some Iraqi residents were being handed coins with Bible passages printed on them. Many citizens in the town of Fallujah being Sunni Muslims view this as an attempt at conversion and believe that the American soldiers doing this should cease the practice.

One resident was quoted as saying, "Because we are weak this is happening." In reading the opening story presented in this article, it certainly seems that the Americans, be it one person or a large group, are able to pass these message coins onto Iraqis based on fear that some citizens have of these soldiers. Because the citizens fear these soldiers, they take what is given to them, only later to find these Bible passages. Citizens of the town have been seen in large groups discussing these coins, and at least one Iraqi has stated that, "This can cause strife between the Iraqis and especially between Muslim and Christians . . . . Please stop these things and leave our homes because we are Muslims and we live in our homes in peace with other religions."

A local U.S. military spokesman says an investigation has begun in order to determine if U.S. soldiers are in fact handing such religious materials to Iraqi citizens. Such act of “proselytizing any religion, faith or practices” is prohibited by the military. These allegations follow not far after a U.S. sniper was removed from Iraq after using the Quran for target practice. President Bush issued a former apology for the sniper’s actions, and most likely will be required to apologize once again if these new allegations are found to be true. If such incidents continue, a mere apology may not be sufficient.

By no means is anybody alleging that the U.S. on a national level is attempting to convert all Iraqi Muslims to Christianity. At this point it is unknown just how many soldiers are distributing the coins in question, but it seems unlikely that it is a group effort being perpetrated by an entire branch or even troop of soldiers. Still, it is necessary that such practices, no matter how widespread or unique, stop in order to respect the Iraqi citizens’ choice in faith.

The job being performed by U.S. troops in situations such as this is to assist in stabilizing the country and ensure peace is established. Whether non-military citizens believe this effort is working or not, it can hardly be argued that the military’s job is to spread the word of Christianity. Troops are not to force any aspect of their culture on the country’s citizens, but are to only help to ensure that Iraqis are able live in peace and to help assimilate Western culture into the country when asked.

By attempting to force religion on others, the only result can be more strife and discord. By forcing this religion, a new level of distrust may be formed by those not wishing to be converted. Whether this distrust is leveled at foreigners (the U.S.) or at other Iraqis who follow Christianity, the only effect will be new problems that may lead to more fighting and undo the efforts at rebuilding and stabilizing the country.

In Brief: Three Favorites from the Past Week

--Stephen Sottong’s feature for May's American Libraries on e-books isn’t available online, but one can easily gather that it’s stirred the pot a bit. Sottong considers both “computer-based” e-books and portable readers, and finds them both wanting. His argument against the former is that “the innate workings of our eyes” present physical limitations when reading computer displays. Simply put, users that face lengthy texts on a computer screen will “either print the text or ignore it” instead of reading in a detailed manner. Regarding the portable readers, Sottong raises familiar complaints: high prices (over $300 for a Kindle or E-Reader) for poor resolution, the lack of an open format for book files, and the fact that portable readers only have one function.
It’s a provocative argument, as is Sottong’s proposal to libraries at the end, which is (very loosely paraphrasing) “Gut your e-book budget and use the money on print resources.” I admit that I’m somewhat sympathetic to this suggestion, as I’ve indicated before. Yet I also admit that I’ve been unaware of how, for instance, e-books might benefit older patrons. Additionally, Sottong’s argument highlights the need for more information on user reception and experience, both with computers and portable readers; there simply isn’t enough of it right now. That’s why I don’t think he marshals enough evidence to convincingly claim that libraries should drop their financial consideration of e-books. We’ve got quite a ways to go before libraries can even think about proclaiming e-books as a lost cause, regardless of how some of us may resent their presence.

--I don't know enough about global food systems to know if Bee Wilson's pessimistic analysis for the New Yorker is more accurate than, say, Bread for the World president David Beckmann's more hopeful take. Regardless, both are informative. Wilson may very well be right in claiming that it's "futile…to look to the food system for radical change," especially when agribusiness companies such as Monsanto have potential competition (and their clients) in a virtual chokehold. And it's helpful to remind readers about why seemingly good intentions—buying seafood to avoid factory-farmed meat—can be quite destructive. Beckmann, on the other hand, emphasizes the good news, such as attributing rising food prices to decreased hunger in China and India. He also exemplifies a classic Christian view of hope in the best sense—looking towards a world after this one "where there will be hunger no more," yet remaining determined to rectify the inequalities of here and now.

--Finally, a blog recommendation: Trinity College’s Spiritual Politics. Though it lists several contributors, editor Mark Silk handles almost all of the posts. That’s not a detriment, for Silk is a shrewd observer of media coverage and religious trends. His May 12 post on evangelical allegiance to the Republican Party is a good example. While many journalists are eager to jump on the “death of the Religious Right” train, it takes him one paragraph to convincingly claim otherwise. Also, see Silk’s insightful exchange with Jeff Sharlet, whose new book The Family is quite good (about which I’ll have more to say here in the near future).

Texas court exceeded discretion in ordering children removed from FLDS ranch

Well, we posted about this last month, so I figured I better give an update. I have been waiting to hear what the courts had to say and it looks like they have spoken…

A Texas appeals court ruled yesterday that a San Angelo judge (Barbara Walther) exceeded her discretion when she ordered the state to take custody of more than 460 children from a polygamous sect.

In its ruling, the Texas 3rd District Court of Appeals decided in favor of 38 women who had challenged the removals and appealed a decision last month by a district judge that the children will remain in state custody.

The order said State District Judge Barbara Walther abused her discretion when she ordered the children seized and gave her 10 days to vacate her order.

Child welfare officials removed the children alleging that the sect pushed underage girls into marriage and sex and trained boys to become future perpetrators.

A spokesman for Child Protective Services (CPS) said attorneys were reviewing the order and a decision regarding an appeal would be made later.

In the decision, the court ruled that CPS failed to provide any evidence that the children were in imminent danger and acted hastily in removing them from their families.

"The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the Department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger," the court ruled.

All I can say is, if there are underage girls who are being forced into marriages with adults (who should know better), and are forced to have children before they are ready, then I have a problem with the situation and believe the children should not be returned to the compound. The state of Texas needs to stay involved and protect the rights of these children. I think that this case is far from over . . . Texas has really opened up a can of worms with the FLDS this time.

For commentary on the ruling, click here

This just in . . .(from CNN.com) Texas appeals ruling on sect children

Court Issues Ruling on Gays in the Military

Less than one week after a California Court overturned the ban on same-sex marriages in the state, a Seattle Court has issued a ruling in supporting gay rights in regards to the military. The decision, issued yesterday, prevents the military from discharging a person based solely on the fact that they are gay.

According to the article, the Seattle Court is the first appellate court to issue a ruling “that evaluates ‘don't ask, don't tell’ in light of Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court's 2003 decision that struck down that state's ban on gay sex as an unconstitutional intrusion into people's privacy”. While not striking down the law, the Court has stated that the Air Force must provide evidence that Major Margaret Witt, the Plaintiff in the case, was dismissed for other reasons than merely being gay. The Court has stated that, “the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's stated goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.”

Prior to the ruling in Lawrence, it was not uncommon for the Courts to rule on the side of the military, which often argued that having homosexuals in the military was bad for morale and gave rise to potential sexual tension. After Lawrence, the military is now required to meet a stricter standard of proof on a case-by-case basis. This ruling, applying the applicable post-Lawrence standard, opens the door for other discharged servicemen and women to bring challenges in Federal Court of improper discharge due to being gay.

Much like the gay marriage decision ruling from California, this does not appear to be the end of the issue. California’s ruling has at least temporarily provided an automatic method for homosexuals to take advantage of the ruling without any additional requirements – they merely need to take the already established steps to obtain a marriage license and have a wedding performed; until an amendment (which is apparently being prepared in hopes of being placed on the November ballot) is made to the State Constitution, this right will remain. For those challenging their discharge from the military, they are required to file suit in Federal Court and have their matter heard; while this is the same procedure any person filing a similar grievance is required to follow, it remains to be seen how the military will argue, and the Courts will rule, in these discharge grievances filed by gay servicemen and women.

Obviously, homosexuals, or any people, marrying and serving in the military are two entirely different issues. When marrying, there are concerns about health benefits, probate and other items that are inherent to marriage and this gives rise to issues that are absent when speaking about serving in the military. When serving in the military, it is more akin to a job and earning benefits through that job. If the person is capable at doing this job, it would seem that you would want to continue employing that person, especially in a position dealing with national security and in a field that is starting to decrease in its recruitment. For me, it would seem that it would be similar to working alongside a person of another religious denomination with beliefs totally contrary to those of my own; as long as they perform their job as required and do not cause chaos in the work area, I can see no reason to let them go merely due to their beliefs. Admittedly, I have never served in the military, so I may very well be missing some nuances of serving in the military regarding working alongside either a gay serviceman or woman and the impact they would have on my ability to perform my duties. However, it seems unlikely that merely serving aside a gay serviceman or woman would be enough to entirely disrupt the operations of others, and as such it seems unlikely that being discharged for merely being gay is inappropriate. Therefore, it is hoped that Courts seriously consider the merits of these discharges, and force the armed forces services to reconsider their policies.

Muncie, Than and Now

For some unknown reason, I still remember sitting in my fifth-grade class one day and picking up a copy of USA Today that we were using for a group project. A graph—the paper’s specialty, of course—caught my eye: cities with the highest rates of population growth and decline across the nation. (Results from the 1990 census were probably emerging at this point.) I saw that Muncie, Indiana was in the “decline” category, losing people faster than virtually anywhere else. Muncie is a Rust Belt city, and its economic situation was becoming grim.

Several years later, I went to college at Ball State University, and lived in Muncie for nearly six years. Muncie’s manufacturing sector remained in a protracted state of decline (see Figure 2 here). In 2001, the manager of my church softball team told me that for the first time in well over thirty years, he was facing short-term layoffs at the tool-and-die company where he worked. Not long afterward, it was the city’s two major transmission plants—BorgWarner and GM’s New Venture Gear—that began the cycle of layoffs that would ultimately lead to shutting their doors. And the population continued to drop, though it has steadied a bit more recently.

So what about Muncie’s future? Libby Copeland’s article on Muncie for the Washington Post certainly doesn’t present a bright picture, and with good reason. Sitting next to each other, Ball State and Ball Memorial Hospital signify Muncie’s post-industrial transition. Education, health care, and other areas within the service sector are the city’s economic hope. But as she insightfully notes, this hope is predominantly located north of the White River. The downtown area has struggled to re-establish itself thanks to the commercial development—notably, chain restaurants—along Indiana 332 to the north. Go south of the railroad tracks that run through downtown, and one can indeed “see the frayed seams of the Rust Belt.” Example: a new Wal-Mart in the southeast corner of the city has instantly become one of the healthiest businesses on the south side, simply by existing.

Copeland does miss a couple of important factors in outlining this north/south divide. The railroad tracks have historically stood as a line of color as well as class, and symbolize the city’s struggles with racism (example here). There also isn’t any discussion of religion; one possible angle could have been a brief consideration of churches located in the “historic downtown,” and how their attendance compares to the almost-moribund state of the nearby area.

Still, this is very good overview for its length. Besides what I noted above, Copeland accurately captures the mixed legacy of the “Middletown” study. It’s been quite important to Ball State and academic scholarship in general, but what should it mean to citizens that are struggling for jobs? And her mention of Ball State graduates fleeing the area is dead on, as there’s simply little to nothing for young graduates in the area. That’s why I wasn’t particularly sad to leave Muncie; it produced a lot of fond memories, but my girlfriend and I knew that it couldn’t produce a meaningful future.

Scientists Genetically Alter Human Embryo

An article published by the Associated Press this past Tuesday presents news that scientists have successfully altered a human embryo. In doing so, these scientists have crossed into an area of much controversy: “designer babies” – the use of genetic engineering to ensure certain traits are either absent or present in babies.

Although this research was presented to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine last fall, this is just now drawing attention after being used in a research report by British Authorities. Due to the publication of this work, groups such as the Center for Genetics and Society, Human Genetics Alert and the Genetics and Public Policy Center have come out in criticism of the research claiming that this will lead to the ability to create “designer babies”. They argue that the creation of such “designer babies” “would create an unequal society where some people are genetically enriched while others would be considered inferior.”

The scientists who altered the embryo claim that the study was focused on studying stem cells. By inserting a marker gene into the nonviable embryo, they observed whether they could trace the genes to stem cells that could be harvested. By using an abnormal embryo, the scientists intended to determine whether the gene would be taken up by the embryo, hopefully facilitating further research into why abnormal embryos fail to develop. They claim that there was no intent on their parts to develop methods for creating “designer babies”.

Research in the field of medicine will always come with some negatives. In testing new medicines, lab animals may be required, causing complaints from animal rights groups. In further testing, individuals may become involved who have negative reactions to the tested medication, giving rise to potential lawsuits. So is the case with an attempt to study stem cells and research issues as those mentioned in this article. In some instances, it is easy to say that the outcome justifies the testing required. To get an effective treatment, it is seen as acceptable to most that the medication is tested on animals.

However, in this specific instance, the cost/benefit analysis may not be as easy to apply for many. The claims of the scientists seem meritorious: to be able to determine why some embryos develop abnormally, it is necessary to study them which may necessitate stem cell research. Even though this was the focus of this particular study, the research may eventually be used by others as protesters allege. Still, arguing that current research efforts such as this should be halted due to the possibility of future alternative uses, which many may see as controversial and/or improper, seems hardly appropriate as such reasoning could potentially be applied to a variety of other potentially life saving research projects. Instead, perhaps the focus should be on the “what is” rather than the “what could be” and allow scientists to do what they can today to establish and discover procedures that can be used in a beneficial manner by many.

Libraries and the “Parallel Information Universe”

Library Journal usually doesn't make it on my to-read list, and I sometimes feel a bit guilty about ignoring it, since it has useful information for circulation staff as well as librarians. So I browsed through the latest issue, and read Mike Eisenberg's feature article on “the parallel information universe.” Though a commenter correctly points out that information doesn't exist in a “parallel” universe, I think Eisenberg provides a decent overview of Web 2.0 and its potential importance for libraries. Three brief comments:

--The idea of a “virtual study carrel” with reference services as part of Second Life is quite creative. The larger issue, however, is if it could really become “the focal point of your studies,” as Eisenberg proposes. What kind of information and multimedia material would be available that would distinguish it from other reference tools? Would libraries and universities be willing to provide on-the-clock reference services for such a project? For that matter, how difficult would it be to secure any necessary funding for creating it? In short, how would librarians establish a virtual study carrel that is not only useful within Second Life, but also in comparison to search engines, blogs, library websites, and so forth?

--Eisenberg rightly notes that social networks will help libraries to identify the “needs” of younger generations. At the same time, they need to consider the security and privacy issues of social networks and how they often relate to an onslaught of third-party marketing. (Facebook’s Beacon project offered a perfect—and troubling—example.) There’s also the fact that for all of Facebook’s stunning popularity, its applications are predominantly inane. These issues directly conflict with the Library Bill of Rights and the ALA’s interpretation of privacy. I would hope that librarians critically reflect upon how best to approach social networks without potentially compromising the rights of patrons.

--Absolutely on the mark:

“This platform for the delivery and use of digital content provides an extraordinary opportunity for libraries to serve users at the point of demand. It's also an opportunity to reach nonusers. In addition, libraries can play a major role in expanding access to those who may not be able to pay for resources, services, or even devices.”

Eisenberg also points out that “commercial interests” could adversely affect how libraries adopt digital content (something he didn’t note with regard to social networks). But if libraries are proactive on the issue, they can create a vital new reference/multimedia service for patrons—one with numerous possibilities.

Ohio House Bill 545

On May 1, 2008, the Ohio House passed House Bill 545, aimed at reducing the interest charged by payday loan organizations. According to the Dayton Business Journal, this Bill “would cap annual percentage rates on payday loans at 28 percent, extend the repayment period to 31 days from 14 days and cut the maximum loan amount to $500 from $800.” Previously, these companies could charge $15.00 per $100.00 loaned over a fourteen-day period, which calculates to a 391 percent interest rate.

Those supporting this Bill insist that this measure is aimed at helping people who become trapped in a “cycle of debt”. By lowering the interest rate, limiting the number of loans a person may take per month and limiting loan amounts, the bill attempts to rectify the problem of those who “get in over their head”. Also, by preventing these customers from taking out new loans to pay back old debt, this Bill is seen as a measure to make sure borrowers are not stuck in perpetual debt.

Statistics show that over “300,000 Ohioans are trapped in debt” and “2,460 people in Ross County were indebted to payday lenders’ in 2006. Prior to the passage of this Bill, these payday lenders were given prior warning to change their practices, and failed to comply.

As would be expected, these payday lending companies are fighting the passage of this measure. In Chillicothe alone, at least thirty people would be put out of work due to many of these locations failing to remain profitable and ultimately close. It is expected that this Bill would have similar effects on other cities in Ohio, causing many throughout the state to become jobless.

Aside from the argument of the growing number of unemployed, the payday lending organizations argue that they serve a beneficial purpose in providing loans to those when nobody else will provide needed funds in emergency situations. They claim that as long as borrowers are responsible, they will not fall into the “cycle of debt” that the House uses as justification for passage of the Bill.

Public policy would seem to dictate that the interest rates being charged are usurious and should be limited. Also in the favor of the passage of such a Bill is the fact that such payday lending organizations seem to allow for easier access to loans which, combined with the current rates they charge, appears to contribute to the growing debt within the state and country.

I admit that my initial impression towards this legislation was nothing but positive, as I have seen people get in trouble by overusing these services. However, to view the arguments of these organizations, it does seem that they do provide some valuable services when used correctly. In the emergency situations that they state they are able to assist with, when nobody else can, a valid point is made for how they can be used properly.

The problem then seems to become: How do we stop people from overusing these services and overextending themselves? Perhaps an even more important question related to this may be: Is it the government’s job to ensure that these services are not abused? Answering the second question first, it would seem that the government does have some part to play in ensuring that citizens do not end up in unemployment through over-extending themselves. And, the number of people they protect in doing this may certainly outweigh the number of people they put out of jobs with this legislation. Still, what amounts to “baby-sitting” of those who can’t use the system properly seems to put the government in a role it was not necessarily meant to fill. It is comparable to trying to stop people from spending their entire paycheck (money in hand) instead of saving some for a “rainy day”, which I do not feel anybody would argue is the job of the state or federal government. Even if House Bill 545 is enacted as passed by the House, people will find ways to spend their money in ways that some may claim are irresponsible and against public policy, or will find people “off the record” who may provide needed funds at even higher rates (answering the first question above that there really is no way to prevent people from finding ways to spend money they don’t have). By attempting to prevent overuse by those who perhaps will find other ways to overextend themselves, it seems that the government is punishing those people who use the payday lending services in the responsible way they were intended to operate.

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Announces Beginning of Public Comment Period

The National Prison Rape Elimination Commission is seeking public comment on the draft standards for adult prisons and jails, and supplemental standards for facilities holding immigration detainees (May 5 through July 7, 2008). Click here for the standards and information on submitting comments.

More information . . .

• To read the full press release, click here.
• For a complete overview of the Commission's work, please click here.
• For a review of the Commission's research and information gathering process, please click here.
• For a description of the Commission's standards development process, please click here.

In Brief: Two Takes on Writing and Digitalization

--I appreciate that Annalee Newitz’s column for Alternet is generally thoughtful and forward-thinking, but her take on the benefits of publishing online is myopic. After coming up with a broad interpretation of “publishing” online, she writes the following:

“…books can be burned. All copies of a book can be wiped out by one crappy political regime bent on censorship. Online it's much more difficult to burn a book. Just try deleting a book or movie or sound file you want suppressed. Ten copies pop up elsewhere. Then 10,000 copies. And they're stored on servers all over the world, in countries where your shock troops can't reach, in high school kids' closets where even their parents can't reach.

“Sure the oil reserves will run dry, or an electromagnetic pulse could wipe all of Google's server farms clean. Then you'd want those books as backups. But I don't think electricity itself is something we'll ever lose as a civilization. There are just too many ways to make it: water, air, sun, the motion of your legs as you ride a bicycle—all can be converted into enough energy to boot up a laptop and read what's been written there.”

Part of what Newitz is arguing is true; the Internet’s distributive capabilities means that material published online can spread rapidly enough to avoid complete elimination from a political authority. She’s also right in that online activity will likely survive even if our production of energy changes drastically in the future. But she completely ignores some (quite obvious) shortcomings. As an example, if PopMatters were to crash tomorrow and never go back online, I would still have backups of my reviews on my home computers. But most of my reviews would be completely gone from the Internet. And if I didn’t have backups, that’s all she wrote for several months worth of work. Even if someone doesn’t deliberately delete online written content, that content can accidentally disappear quite easily in a technological mishap.

More glaring is an issue that a commenter mentions: the Internet “is going to last only as long as there is enough money behind it to keep it going.” Like I said above, I think the Internet’s going to be around for a while. The mention of money is important, though. Why doesn’t Newitz consider how money determines online access? How telecommunication companies want to compromise “net neutrality” for financial reasons? Or even how online publication can require a writer to pay continual fees—whether for domain rights or for some type of subscription—to ensure that content doesn’t disappear? I get the feeling that Newitz is arguing from the standpoint of the Internet as a radically democratic tool. And it certainly can be, but financial and corporate considerations just as certainly affect its potential for expression, which in turn affects its potential as a site of storage.

--Nate Anderson’s solid coverage for Ars Technica on the issue of digital books continues with this March entry: “Book lovers have emotional bond with paper.” As he reports, a UK survey about digital entertainment found the following:

“People are more attached to their books than they are to their satellite television, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, social networks, video games, blogs, DVDs, and P2P file-swapping…

“That's not great news for the e-book market, and follow-up questions only showed how entrenched paper books are in the public imagination. When the survey asked about people's emotional attachment to paper books, 53 percent of respondents said that they would ‘never’ or would ‘hate’ to stop using them, and another 24 percent said they would be ‘uncomfortable.’ ”

Obviously, it would be helpful to know if responses are similar in other countries. Moreover, there’s the unanswered question of just how well the Amazon Kindle and Sony E-Reader are selling (see here and here; also, as I write this, Amazon has announced on their front page that the Kindle is back in stock after being sold out for a lengthy period.) Still, the survey that Anderson references cuts to the core of the issue: are e-books compelling enough to create a large-scale shift away from paper books? And the answer—at least at this point—would have to be a no.

Something to consider regarding this issue is the fact that the e-book industry is attempting to follow a similar model to the digital music industry, where convenience is the primary selling point. (In other words, having numerous books at the touch of a button is more convenient than carrying around one paper book or a small number of paper books.) Nevertheless, the problem that remains is the experience factor, which is a chief complaint among the survey respondents. Digital music consumers have generally been willing to forgo the tactile pleasures associated with previous music media formats, such as taking the shrink-wrap off a new CD, looking at liner notes, and so forth. But books are completely different. When you are reading a book, you are engaging in a constant state of touching and/or looking at the actual book. I think that this is a significant factor in the emotional attachment that is associated with books and with reading, and it’s a factor that, for the most part, isn’t as intense with regard to music.

Accordingly, when a survey such as this one finds that over three-quarters of respondents are at least reluctant to give up paper books, it’s fair to interpret that as an ominous sign for e-book manufacturers. This isn’t to say that Sony, Amazon, and book publishers will fail to establish themselves; rather, the experience—the simple act—of reading will likely circumscribe their market share.

Thinking about Let Us Now Praise Famous Men

In 1936, Fortune magazine assigned its reporter James Agee (then only twenty-six) and government photographer Walker Evans to study the lives and work of tenant cotton farmers in the Deep South. Agee and Evans settled near the rural Alabama town of Cookstown (a pseudonym for Moundville, near Tuscaloosa), and for several weeks they stayed with the Gudger family (also a pseudonym), observing them as well as two other nearby households. By all respects, it was a wonderful career opportunity for both, but Agee became dissatisfied with attempting to craft a story to Fortune’s liking. After he refused to work on a second draft, the magazine terminated the assignment, and he began to expand upon his findings.

Agee’s efforts would turn into the first edition of Let Us Now Praise Famous Men in 1941. The book went out of print after selling around 600 copies, and Agee went on to become one of the most important film critics of his generation, working for Time and then The Nation. Agee died from a heart attack (and hard living) in 1955, and won a posthumous Pulitzer in 1958 for his autobiographical novel A Death in the Family. But it wasn’t until 1960 that Let Us Now Praise was re-released and found a widespread audience. Today, it stands as a landmark journalistic achievement for Agee’s combination of innovative self-reflexive accounts, literary sensibility, and thorough fact-finding, along with Evans’ simple yet evocative photographs.

It is also a book that, for all of its accomplishments, is notably divisive. Even during the nominating process for the Top 100 Works of Journalism list, committee member Madeleine Blais derisively referred to “the usual knee-jerk worship of this volume,” arguing that only Evans’ photographs made it worthy of inclusion. Let Us Now Praise’s structure is a particular target of criticism. As Agee writes, “the ‘truest’ thing about the experience” is not to create a chronological account, but to record the experience “as it turns up in recall…If this is so the book as a whole will have a form and set of tones rather less like those of narrative than like those of music” (215).

And indeed, this is what we get. The chronological “beginning”—when he meets for the first time George Gudger, Bud Woods, and Fred Ricketts, the patriarchs of the three families he observes—occurs about three-quarters through the book. Highly poetic and existential reflections are sandwiched between thick slabs of description on Agee’s spatial surroundings (such as the Gudger’s house and land). This is why David Denby is right to suggest that “it’s one of those books which many people read parts of when they were in school but never got around to finishing.”

Agee’s writing style often isn’t helpful, either. Washington Post book critic Michael Dirda finds in a 2005 review that Agee “keeps talking about what he's going to talk about, and the pages roll by, until the reader eventually arrives at the book's very last sentence. And there our author announces that he is finally turning to the story ‘which I shall now try to give you.’ ” Along the way, Agee’s intense attention to detail and reverence for human experience arguably results in overwriting, particularly within his philosophical vignettes. He defensively postures himself in the book’s beginning (see page 8: “If I bore you, that is that”), yet later decamps in his repeated efforts to convey his earnestness and sincerity. He oscillates between a hard-bitten realism and what Denby characterizes as a “stargazingly wide-eyed” stance, as well as a range of positions in between. And for all of his incredible insights—and there are plenty—he also is contradictory and confusing at points.

On the other hand, I think Bruce Jackson’s 1999 essay for the Antioch Review provides some welcome insight that is more positive. Jackson admits that “[i]t is a difficult and in some ways an intimidating book,” but he also is able to clarify what Agee and Evans were attempting, and why the results are so important. Two of his arguments particularly stand out.

First, he identifies that “[t]he structure of Let Us Now Praise Famous Men is grounded in the relationship between the words and the pictures.” As I would come upon certain sections while reading Let Us Now Praise, I would flip back to Evans’ photographs at the beginning, connecting them with whom or what Agee was discussing at that point. The photographs adhere to what Evans would call a “transcendent documentary” style, presenting their subjects in an austere and unsentimental manner that is notably resonant. As Jackson argues, they act as a type of anchor that helps ground and provide context for Agee’s descriptions, allowing us “a vision of the reality he’s writing his way toward.” Although the photographs’ placement at the beginning may be contradictory to what we assume is “normal,” I think this serves as a preparation for what we are about to encounter. From this perspective, it’s easier to view the arrangement of the book for what it is—innovative—instead of puzzling.

Secondly, Jackson makes the following contention about Agee’s writing:

“This book is no more and no less about cotton tenant farming than Moby Dick is about whaling. Which is to say, there is no way Let Us Now Praise Famous Men could exist without cotton tenant farming and you'll learn a lot about cotton tenant farming reading it and if you want to read it just for the cotton tenant farming parts you'll learn many good things. But probably not the most useful things. And what you'll miss entirely is precisely the experience of what matters…

“He can't explore the consciousness of the people he and Evans met in rural Alabama, nor does he really try. He explores the surface of their world and what he can see of the depths of his own in an attempt to show you not himself, but to help you see as if through his eyes. To do that, we must understand the limitations of those eyes, that mind, that sensibility. He uses the first person not to tell us what to see, but how to see. It is as if he is saying, ‘You think you are standing here and seeing this? Well, you're not, because you are this and this and this’ ” (emphasis mine).

Agee struggled in writing the original article for Fortune because he felt that a standard factual account of cotton tenant farming was impossible. So although Let Us Now Praise contains thick descriptions of the Gudger’s home, land, and daily activities (as well as other areas), the primary goal isn’t to provide readers with an “objective” investigation. In fact, it is the opposite—he is telling us how little we can know about the farmers and their lives. This is why, as Jackson notes, we should think about how Agee places human experience as the central focus of his writing. As Agee writes in a flowing sentence:

“All that each person is, and experiences, and shall never experience, in body and in mind, all these things are differing expressions of himself and of one root, and are identical: and not one of these things nor one of these persons is ever quite to be duplicated, nor replaced, nor has it ever quite had precedent…”

Instead of providing answers, Agee seeks to raise more questions—about what it means to live and interact within a culture different than your own, about describing the actions of others, and even about what it means to do journalism.

This barely even makes a dent into the complexity of Let Us Now Praise Famous Men. And to be honest, I’m still wrestling with my opinion of it in light of the shortcomings I mention above. Yet with Jackson’s essay in mind, I’m trying to remain open to the richness of Agee’s dialogue and Evans’ photographs, and what they might teach me.

Medical Technology and the Ethics of Life-Ending Decisions

This morning’s online edition of the Washington Post has an interesting article discussing the intersection of new and experimental medical technology with the evolving ethics, morals and duties of healthcare professionals. The article focuses on the increasing use of heart pumps in what is becoming a rather large elderly population; in doing so, it addresses the question of what is to be done when these heart pumps fail to work, and possibly increase the health problems of these elderly users.

As a point of reference, the Washington Post article discusses an individual who had one such heart pump implanted as a final effort to deal with his medical issues. However, upon implanting this device, his condition only grew worse as he experienced infections and other complications. Overall, this device has caused him to experience a lower overall quality of life, but removing the heart pump means certain, almost immediate, death.

Doctors are caught in a legal and moral dilemma when such problems arise. As one member of the ethics committee at New York-Presbyterian Hospital states, “[t]urning it off would be ‘tantamount to removing the patient's heart’”. While the article states that most requests are honored, there have been several instances where such patients have apparently turned to self-help and deactivated their heart pumps themselves.

Such heart pumps appear to be just the beginning of potential issues with replacement organs. Artificial organs are being seen as “destination therapy” for many new patients; instead of ultimately receiving a transplant, these artificial organs will be the final answer for many patients. It is expected that researchers will continue to develop other such artificial organs other than just hearts.

The use of technology to aid the ever-aging population seems to be an ideal answer, especially in a time when it seems there is an insufficient supply to meet this demand. The question then becomes, as this article demonstrates, is what type of aid to provide to those who experience problems from such devices and eventually want them removed or shut off. Hospitals have both legal and moral concerns to observe. It is the business of the hospital to save lives and cure disease, not to assist in the ending of these lives. Hospitals then also have to consider potential litigation from family members who are unhappy with any such life-ending assistance.

The removal of these “organs” does not appear to fall within already settled hospital procedures. When the proverbial “plug” is pulled for those in permanently vegetative states, it is the family or holder of a power of attorney who comes in and makes the decision; the patient is not in a position to make their own decision as they apparently are in cases such as the one mentioned in the Washington Post article. Even in such situations, there are strict procedures to be followed by the hospital even before getting to the point of speaking with the family regarding their options. The problem with implementing procedures such as these for those wishing to have their medical devices removed is that it may still not remove the stigma on such procedures by people who will assuredly view these deactivations as nothing more than assisted suicide, which will inevitably lead to further issues and potential litigation.

Supreme Court upholds use of lethal injection for executions

The Supreme Court upheld use of a lethal injection cocktail for executions, by a 7-2 vote – turning back a constitutional challenge that argued it was cruel and unusual punishment.

At issue was whether the most common method of capital punishment can cause excruciating pain for death row inmates, violating the Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment," and thereby giving inmates a proper challenge in court.

The Court rejected claims by two Kentucky death row inmates that the method violated the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment by inflicting needless pain and suffering, mostly in the risk that the designated procedures would not be properly followed in all cases.

The justices spent nearly six months debating behind closed doors.

For more information:

High court upholds lethal injection method (CNN)
Executions to resume after high court OK's lethal injections (Chicago Tribune)
Supreme Court Allows Lethal Injection for Execution (NY Times)

A Review of Rightward Bound

(Quick note: This review will run sometime in the near future on PopMatters. In the meantime, I have a review on the site for Randall Balmer’s God in the White House).

Rightward Bound arrives at a prescient moment. Modern American conservatism is far from its political death, but the ruinous legacy of George W. Bush has helped dash Karl Rove’s dreams of a “permanent majority.” Culturally, the story is similar. Annual abortion numbers have remained steady, public acceptance of gay rights continues to increase, and immigration has failed as a Republican wedge issue. So what are the reasons for this mixed record? As co-editors Bruce J. Schulman and Julian E. Zelizer argue, the movement’s “past has much to say about the contemporary condition.”

The most common historical account for America’s turn to conservatism has been the “backlash” theory. This theory holds that Vietnam and the stark cultural changes of the 1960s caused many to ultimately make a hard right turn in reaction. (Some scholars point at economic conditions instead of cultural ones as a primary cause.) More recently, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has advanced a pithy, quite concise explanation of his own: “southern whites started voting Republican.” Krugman finds that racist political tactics—such as Richard Nixon’s infamous “Southern strategy”—created a key turning point.

In contrast, Rightward Bound renders both of the above ideas as oversimplified. The book provides three broad reasons why. First, it demonstrates that the 1970s—and not the previous decade—was when conservatism found long-term success. Second, a variety of factors contributed to America’s rightward turn during the ‘70s; race and economics were important, but so also were gender issues, foreign policy debates, and concerns among white ethnic groups. Third, conservatives gained traction at both the grassroots and within government during the decade. Yet they also struggled against liberalism as well, and those conflicts continue to linger today.

Schulman and Zelizer state in a recent article that these new conclusions largely emerge from scholars who have been able to study the 1970s “with fresh eyes.” Accordingly, some of Rightward Bound’s strongest chapters come from the young historians that they go on to specifically mention. A notable example is Joseph Crespino’s look at private Christian schools in the South. He outlines how controversy erupted when the IRS stripped certain schools of their tax-exempt status due to racial discrimination. As Randall Balmer also argues, the response among conservative Christians was critical to the Religious Right’s formation. In just sixteen pages, Crespino does a nice job of summarizing the conflict and its eventual importance to the Republican Party’s message.

Meg Jacobs also provides an outstanding essay. In her overview of the 1973-74 energy crisis, she finds that the Nixon White House had to “create the perception of government leadership” for the public. Yet at the same time, they and other conservatives sought to limit the federal government’s role in regulating energy policies. This strategy failed in the short term, but it allowed the movement to develop an anti-government message that was central to the Reagan presidency. Jacobs writes that the crisis ultimately taught “conservative reformers a valuable lesson: fighting liberalism is hard.” She demonstrates why one reason those reformers remain in battle today.

Elsewhere, the authors of Rightward Bound form a compelling case for how and why conservatives gained power during the ‘70s. Schulman and Zelizer note that “areas of consensus” have emerged among historians concerned with the decade, and the book makes this clear. For example, Crespino’s findings relate to those of both Matthew Lassiter in his chapter on “family values,” as well as Paul Boyer on evangelical politics. Yet thanks to careful editing, the book captures a diverse cross-section of events and influences that ultimately played to the advantage of conservatives. As a result, it serves as a constructive starting point for recent historiography on the subject.

The only essay that I think lacks a convincing argument is Bradford Martin’s study of “singer/songwriters” during the early 1970s. Martin identifies how artists such as James Taylor and Joni Mitchell chose to create “soft” music with introspective lyrics. He contends that this form of songwriting “accommodated” conservatism, even though the artists were themselves liberal. It’s an intriguing claim, but becomes lost to due to both a muddled narrative and insufficient supporting evidence. In particular, Martin could have used detailed analyses for a couple of specific songs to provide more concrete examples.

Rightward Bound offers remarkably little to complain about, however. It is a highly important and useful study, and one that offers scholars a new way of grasping conservatism. Just as importantly, this is a book that will hopefully be valuable to a broader general audience. If the public is to make sense of why the conservative revolution faces an uncertain future, they must look backwards as well, and appreciate its laborious beginning.

More on the FLDS

In a follow up to Maureen’s post this past Saturday, more information is being revealed about the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the FLDS), much of it only reinforcing the original suspicions. Also being revealed in an AP article written yesterday is additional information on prior raids on the sect.

According to the article, raids on the FLDS had previously been carried out in 1935, 1944 and 1953. After each of these previous raids, children were taken to foster care and arrests were made, mirroring the present day events. In these previous raids, families returned and more joined this sect once given the opportunity, allowing the sect/cult the ability to continue and grow.

In another article posted on MSNBC, the question of whether the FLDS is a cult or sect is debated. While this debate is very interesting, one of the most intriguing issues covered is why people join these cults or sects. Among the reasons provided as to why people join these groups is that they know nothing else, most often being born into the cult/sect. In the FLDS, it has already been revealed that minors are being married to adult males to have their children; some of these children who have been born into this cult and have now grown up assuredly know no other way of life, leading to the possibility that they will eventually return to the FLDS.

With these past instances of the FLDS continuing to grow and thrive after previous raids, coupled with the fact that many of these members most likely know no other way of life, it is expected that the FLDS will once again reemerge and be able to recruit “willing” members. Members are used to having “Church leaders have kept a strict hold on every aspect of FLDS life — from the modest prairie-style clothes worn by members, to amount of time their kids stay in school and which house a family calls home.” Some are eager to break free, as evidenced by the sixteen-year-old girl who initially contacted authorities, but it seems that many will return to their previous way of life once given the opportunity.

Even conceding the FLDS’ First Amendment rights and ignoring the fact that polygamy is illegal, there remain several disturbing issues. The primary issue is that many of these members have not been given free choice in joining. Having grown up from birth in a lifestyle of polygamy and underage marriage may seem like a perfectly ordinary life for those who do not know anything else. Some, perhaps many, of these members joined the FLDS of their own free will and remain of their own free will; those that have become members solely due to birth cannot be said to have exercised this same level of free will.

In a case such as this, there is no clear cut method for resolving the problems associated with groups such as the FLDS. Obviously, government intervention has not worked as such intervention has only allowed the FLDS to grow. Removing underage children to foster homes has also been tried and failed. Education would seem to be nearly impossible as many members are exposed from birth and are taught this way of life from day one. Accordingly, apart from arresting every single member of the organization, an impossible feat, or constant vigilance, also impossible, it seems that the only method available at this time to curb the growth of the FLDS, at least temporarily, is to wait for further reports from members wishing to leave and willing to provide information as to the present location of the group.

In Brief: Organic Agriculture’s Benefits and “Academics and Athletics”

--Several years ago, I took an independent study on food culture for my history major. One of the books I read was former presidential candidate George McGovern’s treatise The Third Freedom, where he argues that the U.S. has the capacity to end world hunger. In outlining his proposal the federal government, McGovern is quite optimistic about genetically modified (GM) foods, believing that without them, “the task of defeating hunger becomes more difficult and less certain of victory” (39). This book was the first time I had heard of GM foods, but I was already a bit skeptical, and remember bringing this up during conversations with my professor. (Reading this book soon afterward confirmed my suspicions.)

Just as Mark Bittman admits about himself, I remain a near-complete novice on the important points of comparison between organic and GM foods. Regardless, I think he on target in his positive assessment of The Ecologist’s recent articles “10 Reasons Why Organic Can Feed the World” and “10 Reasons GM Won’t." Ed Hamer and Mark Anslow argue that an organic agricultural system is sustainable, provided that we reduce our meat consumption, eat more locally, and reconsider certain farming strategies. They also offer plenty of statistical evidence, though it would be nice to see proper citations for their numbers. Still, they make a fairly compelling contention, and hopefully someone will be able to consider their arguments within an American context.

Likewise, Mark Anslow’s arguments against GM food seem pretty on-target. He re-iterates its most glaring problems: cross-contamination with non-GM food, proven risks to animals, lower yields, and strongly negative public opinion. Currently, none of these factors are enough to derail industrial agriculture’s insistence on GM techniques. Yet at the end, Anslow makes this bold claim: “In a world that will soon have to change its view of farming - facing as it does the twin challenges of climate change and peak oil - GM crops will soon come to look like a relic of bygone practices.”

--What should we make of the Ann Arbor News’ recent four-part investigative series “Academics and Athletics”? AAN has clearly done its homework (seven months worth of research), and the series make a persuasive argument that the University of Michigan’s athletic department deliberately steers scholarship athletes—particularly football and basketball players—into easy academic tracks. Consequently, this series bears some similarity to the Seattle Times investigation about which I wrote in February. Like the Times, the AAN has received overwhelmingly negative local feedback on its findings, including several references to dropped subscriptions in their online comments sections.

I think the best way to place this particular series into perspective is to consider an NCAA study from earlier this year on time commitments for student-athletes. In the study, football players—the central concern of the AAN series—self-reported spending an average of nearly 45 hours per week on athletics. While they also reported spending around 40 hours per week on academics, University of Minnesota quarterback Adam Weber was somewhat skeptical, estimating “the time spent on academics to be between 25 and 35 hours.” With this sort of demanding schedule, it’s apparent that football players in particular are probably not going to have the same sort of educational opportunities as non-athletes (or even other athletes). The question then becomes one of whether universities choose to encourage and challenge football players academically, or whether they take the easy road. The University of Michigan has clearly chosen the latter path, but I’m certain that they’re not alone.

Children rescued from polygamist compound

Polygamy was outlawed in the United States and Canada in 1890. Apparently, Warren Jeffs didn’t get the memo. In 2002, he declared himself Prophet of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the FLDS), a group with 30,000-plus members in North America, after his father Rulon died. After becoming Prophet of the FLDS, he married all but two of dad's 75 widows, including two adolescent sisters given to the old man for his 90^th birthday. Unfortunately for Jeffs, federal authorities didn’t like what he was up to and he was convicted of two counts of rape as an accomplice for his role in the marriage of a 14-year-old follower and her 19-year-old cousin in 2001. He got 10 years to life last November for his role in the arranged marriage of the teenage cousins. To read more about State of Utah v. Warren Steed Jeffs, click here.

Well, life at the ranch hasn’t gotten any better since Jeffs was imprisoned. Child welfare officials are scrambling to find foster homes for dozens of girls removed from the highly guarded West Texas religious retreat after a 16-year-old living there complained of physical abuse. According to authorities, the girls that were placed in protective custody were believed to be in danger.

CNN is reporting that officials from Texas Child Protective Services, escorted by state troopers, took 52 girls, ages 6 months to 17 years, from the remote retreat on Friday afternoon. Child welfare officials were looking for foster homes for the girls, most of whom have rarely been outside the insular world of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They were being housed for now at a civic center, she said.

I firmly believe that we should all be able to live life as we see fit . . . as long as it is legal. However, I get bent out of shape when I see that children are put in dangerous and abusive situations. Children need guidance in order to make good choices. When adults are forcing teenage girls into marriages with grown men then there is problem. It is a relief to know that these girls were rescued without another Waco like stand-off. How authorities help these girls deal with the realities of a world outside the ranch is going to be no small task. We can only hope that they aren't returned to that life anytime soon.

Surreptitious Sampling and Privacy Rights

The New York Times reports this morning on a practice which some claim circumvent requirements of probable cause – surreptitious sampling. Such sampling is performed by gathering “abandoned” DNA samples from alleged criminals in order to match to evidence on hand. As this DNA is alleged to be “abandoned”, there is no need for a court to approve such evidence gathering or issue any type of warrant.

Those challenging this practice claim that such evidence collecting violates the privacy rights of those accused, and perhaps even ordinary citizens. As no probable cause is required to collect these DNA samples, some argue that the police can easily collect evidence on so-called “targeted” persons for later use, whether the person is suspected of illegal activity or not at the time of collection.

Those supporting such evidence collection point to its success in the assistance of prosecuting criminals. According to the law enforcement officials, “Over the last few years, several hundred suspects have been implicated by the traces of DNA they unwittingly shed well after the crime was committed”. Additionally, such sampling has actually assisted in eliminating suspects in many cases.

In a recent decision, a Massachusetts court held that the Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his saliva he spit on the sidewalk. As such the DNA evidence collected from this sample was admissible in Court. Other lower court judges for the most part appear to agree with such reasoning. The United States Supreme Court has not yet been faced with addressing this issue.

Some suggest that a middle ground would provide the best solution to this problem. As one expert suggested, the middle ground may lie in continuing to allow such evidence gathering, after the standard of reasonable suspicion is met. Adding this requirement would ensure that random people are not subject to such surreptitious sampling.

Even without having to meet this standard of reasonable suspicion, the courts so far have sided with that of the police, and perhaps rightfully so. It seems a stretch that police will follow “targeted” persons just to create a database for future use. And it has long been accepted that anything picked out of a person’s garbage is considered abandoned and fair game to be used in a court of law. As is the case with searching garbage, it is unlikely that such DNA collection would take place without some type of suspicion, most likely reasonable, and denying the right to obtain “abandoned” DNA may have unknown consequences on other evidence collecting techniques. While I stand by the fact that a person’s Constitutional rights and privacy deserve the utmost protection, it is hard for me to grasp either: (a) how such surreptitious sampling will become so random and so broad that it will infringe on anybody’s rights who is not under reasonable suspicion to begin with; and, (b) how any person can reasonably have an expectation of privacy in their so-called “abandoned” DNA.