American killed in Beijing as Olympics begin

The Olympics' opening ceremony was a spectacular show, but the beginning of the games began with the stabbing of two American tourists. One of the victims has died. The attacker jumped to his death in this rare daylight stabbing.

A Chinese man stabbed the in-laws of the U.S. Olympic men's volleyball coach, killing one and injuring the other while they visited the 13^th Century Drum Tower, a 130-foot-high landmark. The victims were Todd and Barbara Bachman, parents of former Olympian Elisabeth Bachman, who is married to men's volleyball coach Hugh McCutcheon. Todd Bachman was killed.

The assailant also stabbed and injured a Chinese tour guide with the Americans. He then committed suicide by throwing himself off the Tower. The killing was a rare instance of violent crime against foreigners in tightly controlled China, which has ramped up security measures even more for the Olympics.

I find it interesting that the media is already calling this a rare daylight stabbing – an “isolated act not directed at Americans.” The embassy went as far as to say “we don’t believe this has anything to do with the Olympics.” Not to be cynical, but what else would it have to do with? American tourists at the Olympics were attacked. Communist leaders may be afraid that any negative press might take the shine off the games – well this certainly won’t help. Murdering tourists at the Olympics will definitely tarnish the games.

Waterboarding at Coney Island

An article this morning reports that waterboarding has been brought to America, with a twist. People at Coney Island in New York now have the opportunity to see waterboarding performed firsthand, as demonstrated by robotic actors.

According to the article, the waterboarding being demonstrated is faithful to how many claim it is being done by the United States military; the robot actors include a hooded man and a person dressed in an orange jumpsuit with water being poured over his head. People watch through barred windows, and are able to see the disputed procedure by inserting one dollar into a bill acceptor near this window.

Signs describing the demonstration as a “Waterboard Thrill Ride” and using Spongebob Squarepants (stating that "It don't Gitmo better!") as advertisement would seem to be aimed at downplaying the seriousness of this interrogation method. However, the aim of the creator is completely the opposite. In the article, Steve Powers that he wants “people to understand the psychological ramifications of this."

He also claims that people are able to see the physical pain inflicted, even through the barred windows they watch through. Two patrons interviewed by the article seem to agree that this display was shocking, which I imagine is what the creator wanted. However, while one of the individuals interviewed is glad that people are gaining a better understanding of waterboarding, the other seems to write off the procedure as just another horrific incident of war that people don’t need to see.

What seems good about this display is the fact that it appears to respect these divergent viewpoints. It is not being forced upon anybody, and in fact can only be viewed by a person willingly inserting money at the display. For those who do not wish to view the display, they merely have to keep walking. Also, it appears that the fact that people watch through barred windows would make the display private enough that those happening to pass by would not be able to view it unless they really tried.

Bringing this practice to the attention of people in this way is very interesting. Obviously, by using robots nobody is actually being hurt in this demonstration. Still, it seems that the message is getting across. Many who have read about waterboarding can now get a more concrete handle on what actually happens and potential long-term effects. By providing the choice to people to view this display, I think that a valuable service is provided in educating people as to this practice.

Two Recent Takes on Food and Responsibility

--I’m not really a fan of the New York Post, but their brief profile on Steve Dublanica—a.k.a. “The Waiter”—is notable for a couple of reasons. First, it represents the public unmasking of Dublanica, whose blog Waiter Rant inspired his “new book of the same name.” Secondly, Dublanica raises a salient point regarding restaurant dining:

“ ‘You need to know where your food comes from,’ he says. ‘The same thing holds true for restaurants. You should know that the waiter doesn't make a salary and a tip [or] that a good percentage of restaurants don't treat their employees well.’ ”

Is this somewhat obvious? Sure. But I think it’s a good reminder; even if a restaurant or food-related business is sourcing organic ingredients and humanely-raised meat, their responsibility—and our responsibility as diners and consumers—doesn’t stop there. This means being willing to criticize the establishments that we otherwise love (A good example is Whole Foods: great produce despite the high prices, excellent commitment to paying a living wage, shaky record regarding unions.)

--Gordon Atkinson offers a thought-provoking entry on hunting and gun control at his blog Real Live Preacher. In response to the recent shooting at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, Atkinson first describes his family’s history of hunting for food. He then praises both “careful hunters” and “gentles vegetarians”; criticizes irresponsible gun ownership and those complicit in consuming factory-farmed meat; and finally circles back to gun control and the possibility of finding common ground. This line of thinking isn’t perfect—he generalizes a bit too much, and really unpacking all of these issues would require a much longer essay. Still, I found one passage to be particularly striking:

“Honest and careful hunting of the type that leads to frugal living, care for the land, and respect for what it means to take the life of an animal is a good thing. It’s a natural thing. It’s much better than dropping into a fast-food restaurant and eating meat that doesn’t cost much or cost you anything in time and trouble. The meat industry treats animals as things. They grow up in pens and cages, do not live decent animal lives, and are killed with no sense of compassion, stewardship, or conservation.”

For years, I’ve been ambivalent about hunting deer, especially with regard to my home state of Indiana. One the one hand, Indiana’s deer-hunting season is crucial to controlling overpopulation, and there are enough restrictions to encourage responsibility. And deer hunting also has a practical food value, especially when processed venison can go to food banks. On the other hand, I have a hard time grasping why anyone would experience enjoyment while hunting, and I’m prone to lapsing into generalizations myself when it comes to shooting deer for sport.

Yet as Atkinson, points out, this is a hypocritical stance on my part considering how much meat I’ve consumed from fast food chains over the course of my life. He’s correct to note that there’s a huge difference between reckless hunting and conservationist-based hunting. For omnivores who stand disconnected from the source of their meat, there are valuable lessons to learn from the latter.

FDA to Regulate Tobacco Industry?

Yesterday, the House of Representatives approved legislation that would grant authority to the Food and Drug Commission to regulate tobacco products. However, according to the New York Times, it appears as if any such legislation will be vetoed by the President.

Proponents of the legislation argue that granting the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products would aid in reducing teen smoking and health issues related to smoking. With this authority, the FDA will be able to regulate advertising and set guidelines on who can purchase these products and where.

Those opposing the legislation claim that this places too large of a burden on the FDA. The FDA would be responsible for approving all new tobacco products, taking away time from monitoring other products. Some even claim that, by having FDA approval, consumers will have the impression that these products are safe, when in fact there will still remain many of the health risks currently associated with tobacco products.

Surprisingly, tobacco companies are split in their support of this proposed regulation. Some companies claim that this legislation will require mergers, or closing, of companies as only large tobacco companies will be able to comply with any new standards and guidelines. However, other tobacco companies, both large and small, are fully behind this legislation.

As a non-smoker, it is easy for me to jump on the bandwagon and say that the tobacco industry definitely needs some regulation, and that the FDA is the agency to provide these regulations. While I do see that opponents of such legislation make some valid points, the potential benefits to be garnered from this legislation seem to outweigh many of these negatives. This legislation would still allow those who choose to use tobacco products the opportunity to do so, while attempting to minimize risks, to the extent possible, and hopefully reducing the number of underage smokers.

Barack Obama's Years at the University of Chicago Law School

The NYT published an interesting profile of Barack Obama’s years at the University of Chicago Law School in Teaching Law, Testing Ideas, Obama Stood Apart. It chronicled the 12 years that he spent as a lecturer, offering classes on constitutional law, voting rights, and campaign finance law, and a seminar on racism. (Click here for statement regarding Barack Obama from the University of Chicago Law School website). Obama’s wife Michelle recently criticized the law school experience as narrowing instead of broadening one’s perspectives. (Click here to read the full interview). From everything that I read, it doesn’t appear that was the case in Barack Obama’s classroom.

From the article:

At a formal institution, Barack Obama was a loose presence, joking with students about their romantic prospects, using first names, referring to case law one moment and “The Godfather” the next. He was also an enigmatic one, often leaving fellow faculty members guessing about his precise views.

Of particular interest, the article includes links to a syllabus and several exams from his classes.

My hat is off to Obama for being offered a tenured position without meeting the University of Chicago’s strenuous tenure requirements. Chicago has a reputation of being a hardcore legal academic institution that doesn’t offer tenure lightly, particularly to a candidate who hasn’t published any legal scholarship. Given that Obama published nothing whatsoever and was offered tenure upon hire is feat indeed.

House Passes Measures to Aid Housing Market

The New York Times reports this morning on proposed government measures that are aimed at helping the current housing market. The measures would help to ensure the continued existence of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and would provide measures that would allow borrowers to refinance their mortgages with government-insured loans. It is expected that President Bush will sign this legislation, “despite his opposition to the inclusion of nearly $4 billion in grants for local governments to buy and refurbish foreclosed properties”, as the need to reestablish faith in the housing market is seen as such a high priority.

Only forty-five Republicans voted favor of this legislation, a fact which some see as a attempted separation from President Bush in an attempt to ensure their re-election in November. However, the House Republicans stated that this was nothing more than a vote against a measure that “puts taxpayer money at risk while potentially bailing out irresponsible borrowers and greedy lenders.”

Some describe these measures as a major step in the government’s attempt to reestablish a balance in the housing market, some ranking this move in the same league as the creation of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation created as part of the New Deal for many of the same reasons. However, as is the case in most legislation, there are many who are not convinced that this legislation will have the desired affect.

It is still unsure as to whether the existing downward trend in the housing market will actually be affected by these measures, and many raise concerns about the government stepping in to save Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when many had believed that the government would never spend taxpayer money for such a purpose. Other worries are raised in an Associated Press article; such worries include the fact that only first-time home buyers, whose income is under $75,000.00 ( $150,000.00 if married), who purchase a house between April 9, 2008 and July 1, 2009 will be able to take advantage of the tax breaks offered by the legislation. Even if they are able to take advantage of these tax breaks, such money will be paid back over a fifteen year span, albeit tax-free.

There seem to be a number of concerns that may cause these intended measures to fail. It appears as if the assistance provided to home buyers may be too narrowly tailored to help enough people, and/or it may be too late to turn around the housing market in the short time frame anticipated. Signs, unfortunately, point to failure for these measures, which causes even greater concern about the use of taxpayer money to bail out the two large mortgage companies; while it may be necessary to do so to steady mortgage interest rates, a slow to non-existent turn around in the housing market may require the government to expend more money than is economically appropriate or feasible.

Library Safety and Security, Part II: Practical Security Measures

(See Part I here)

When I look over my notes from last month’s Ohionet workshop on library safety and security, one sentence particularly stands out: “Address [improper] behavior regardless of contextual causes.” While our workshop leaders (Dave Ferimer and Robert Wood) made this suggestion with specific regard to child behavioral issues in a library, it’s just as valuable on a general scale as well. In every library, there are certain rules by which every patron needs to abide; making exceptions because of contextual factors isn’t a sound or safe policy. In this regard, a private law school library like Zimmerman should be no different than a public library branch like Dayton Metro.

Yet because Zimmerman and Dayton Metro are quite different types of libraries, do they always require the same approach towards bad behavior, even if they share the same principle against tolerating it? For example, many of the public librarians at the workshop were describing a fairly consistent struggle to maintain order in their environments. (Even for those not facing significant safety concerns, there were still maddening problems such as teenagers taking CDs into bathrooms and smashing them on the floor.) In comparison, aside from a couple of serious rules violations this year, most of the day-to-day problems at Zimmerman concern food and drink violations. Zimmerman also chooses to restrict patron access at certain times of the year, which obviously isn’t (and shouldn’t) be an option for public libraries.

Still, there are fair and practical security measures that both types of libraries can take without singling out any individual patrons or groups unfairly. Here are three examples that Officers Ferimer and Wood presented during the workshop:

--It helps to post a visible set of rules that 1) are clear and concise, 2) include a concrete consequence. One Ohio public library has a “code of conduct” that lists the following:

--“Disruptive behavior of any kind is not permitted.”
--“Library staff [members] have the authority to determine what is disruptive.”
--“Disruptive customers will be asked to leave library property.”

This code of conduct is quite clear and concise, and it lets patrons know exactly what will happen if they are disruptive. I also like the fact that the second point allows staff members some autonomy in defining whether or not someone is being disruptive. Staff members that feel empowered will likely correspond to a better library environment for everyone, which will in turn help staff morale. In Zimmerman’s case, it might be helpful if we had a better way of visibly conveying our food and drink policy to patrons and library students, along with listing a consequence or two (getting rid of the food/drink, leaving the library until has consumed food/drink).

-- If a patron refuses to leave the library after a staff member confronts them for breaking the rules, it technically constitutes a criminal trespassing violation. In order to have their local police department enforce violations like these, Akron-Summit County Public Library has an official form that they can serve to the patron. The form advises the patron that they are not allowed onto library premises (for either a set period of time or indefinitely), and that any further violations “may result in prosecution for the charge of criminal trespass!” This is a sound option for managing serious cases, and (to the best of my knowledge) would be helpful for both public and private libraries. Even with only two major rule violations in the past year, Zimmerman could have benefited from a trespassing form in one particular case.

--There was a lot of discussion at the workshop about managing, documenting, and resolving unacceptable behavior that becomes threatening or violent. Documentation can be particularly difficult because it’s easy to forget key descriptive elements—the person’s physical appearance, what they said, weapons, and any related activity—after a stressful situation. Accordingly, Cleveland Heights-University Heights Public Library has an online report form that allows its staff to input and submit a thorough description of major incidents. That is an excellent policy, and it’s something that I’m recommending that Zimmerman implements soon. Such a form doesn’t necessarily need to be online, but having a way of quickly documenting what happened provides a potentially vital security benefit, regardless of whether the library is public or private.

Red Cross Fails to Properly Screen Blood Donations

The New York Times Web site has an article this morning discussing current and persisting issues with the American Red Cross and their blood donation procedures. The article states that despite a total in fines of $21 million dollars in the past five years, the Red Cross has failed to implement measures to insure that donated blood is disease free.

The issues have apparently become so serious that the commissioner for the Red Cross attended a board meeting for the first time ever, warning “members that they could face criminal charges for their continued failure to bring about compliance.” The possibility of splitting off the blood services portion of the operations from the remainder of the organization has also been discussed; such a move would be similar to what the Canadian Red Cross has previously done.

According to the article, the major issues appear to be “shortcomings in screening donors for possible exposure to diseases; failures to spend enough time swabbing arms before inserting needles; failures to test for syphilis; and failures to discard deficient blood.” As some may expect, such failures have lead to diseases such as hepatitis, malaria and syphilis when performing blood donations using this blood; to date there appear to be no reports of transmission of HIV or hepatitis B through this blood, as the Red Cross does ensure that all blood are tested for what are considered the more serious diseases.

The Red Cross controls 47% of the nation’s blood supply and close to five million blood transfusions were performed in 2007. The Red Cross’, or any organizations’, failure to perform proper screening of blood donations could cause and apparently has caused unnecessary problems to the person receiving the blood. It is good to hear that the Red Cross is at least performing an adequate duty of screening for these more serious diseases that can be passed through tainted blood. Although it is implausible to think that every batch of diseased blood can be caught, the Red Cross needs to ensure that they take their success in screening for diseases such as HIV and hepatitis B and apply these measures in testing all donated blood for any type of infectious diseases in order to reduce these risks as much as possible.

On-line Classes and the Cost of Gas

With the rising cost of gas, many businesses are seeing changes in consumer activities. Some are choosing more fuel efficient automobiles, while others are reducing their travel or overall spending. Educational institutions also appear to be noticing some changes in their consumers’ behavior. According to an Associated Press article, many colleges and universities are seeing an increase in those preferring to take classes on-line.

Prior to gas prices reaching $4.00/gallon and above, there was already an increasing number of students who preferred to enroll for on-line courses. However, with the latest surge in gas prices, administrators are seeing an even greater increase in enrollment in such courses. While the reasons for students choosing on-line over in person classes are usually not sought by these schools and universities, a clear link has been cited between the cost of fuel and this increase.

Students can enroll primarily in two categories of on-line classes. The first is what most think of when considering on-line coursework – the student logs into the class at their convenience, and communicate to professors through chat and e-mail. The other option mixes in person and on-line classes in that the student is required to log in at class time, and is able to communicate with others in the class via microphones and cameras.

This move towards on-line education is requiring professors to adapt to the new technology. In the article, it is stated that many professors are uncertain about the efficacy of these on-line classes. As would be expected, many of these professors would prefer to have their students live in their classroom, but current economic conditions do not always allow for this.

Computer technology has greatly increased the possibilities in our lives. They have created conveniences and cost-saving alternatives. However, with all new methods and technology, there are drawbacks. In the case of on-line education, one issue, at least when some exclusively on-line schools started popping up, is the fact that there is a risk of diploma mills. These “schools” would basically issue a degree for merely paying the tuition; no class work or learning was required. Many of these diploma mills were caught and shut down, but one would think that there is still a risk involved with similar schemes reoccurring. However, if students take these classes at reputable schools such as Villanova (mentioned in the article as providing such opportunities), these risks would be reduced.

Related to these fears of diploma mills is the fact that many businesses became wary of hiring students who attended these on-line schools. Even if students attend on-line classes at reputable schools, businesses, like professors, will need some time to adapt to the fact that more people are now choosing to attend school solely through the Internet. As this educational method becomes more widespread, it is hoped that the acceptance of students with degrees acquired through on-line coursework will be more easily accepted.

Finally, with taking classes solely on-line and communicating only through e-mail and chat, there is a loss of the close connection between the teacher and student. Some classes would seem to require such contact and not lend themselves as easily to on-line education. Some see college as a time to work with the peers you will eventually be entering the “real world” with, and sitting alone in front of the computer does not necessarily lend itself well to this networking and group work.

All this said, on-line learning definitely works at least in some situations and for certain categories of students. This educational method provides valuable knowledge to students while allowing them to reduce their costs of attending. The trick becomes how to offset the negatives listed above so that students will truly be able to take advantage of these positives.

Library Safety and Security, Part I: Dayton Metro Library and Patron Perception

I recently ran across a Daytonology post from earlier this year about Dayton Metro Library's high volume of homeless patrons at its main branch. The main library is right next to the heart of downtown, while Cooper Park is located directly behind the building. The park's usage has been a particular source of controversy over the past few years; it used to serve as a site for homeless feedings until the city banned them in 2005. Now, with only one daytime homeless shelter in Dayton, Cooper--along with the library--remain a relatively safe rest area for the homeless.

As for the complaints that the Daytonology reader and blogger express, I'm a bit torn. On one hand, they're expressing questions and frustrations that are familiar to other libraries. I attended an Ohionet workshop a couple of weeks ago entitled "Dealing with Unacceptable Behavior in the Library: Protecting Patrons and Staff." Our library has witnessed a couple of serious rule violations this year involving non-student patrons, and I figured that we needed to clarify some safety procedures for managing future problems. But working in a private library that predominantly serves law students must have sheltered me, because I was initially surprised at how almost all of the public librarians and staff at the workshop expressed concerns about pervasive problems that they face. Some of these problems (such as vastly inappropriate sexual and bodily activity) pose quite a threat to the role of their public libraries as safe and democratic spaces. Concerns about drugs, prostitution, and homelessness at Dayton's mail library--as well as how those activities may affect staff morale and patron accessibility--should be no different.

Yet on the other hand--and at the risk of remaining naive--I would still agree with some of the more skeptical comments to this post. I normally go to the Wilmington-Stroop branch that is closest to my apartment, but have been to the main branch enough times to know that the homeless most certainly have not "overrun" it. I would also want to know more information about drug activity (admittedly, a possibility) and prostitution (quite a stretch) directly from librarians and staff before making such claims. And even in the case of illegal activity, it's reprehensible to automatically assume or insinuate that the homeless are the root source of the problem. Yes, the presence of homeless people during the daytime may still raise questions concerning space and usage. But as one commenter rightly notes, "If there is outright illegal activity going on there, then the staff and security guards are perfectly within their rights to tell a perpetrator to hit the bricks. If someone is not being disruptive, however, [then] they have a public right to use the public library."

So we must face the reality that there are several safety and security issues that can adversely affect patron perception of the libraries that they use. But they--we--also have to avoid lazy generalizations and stereotyping that can cloud one's assessment of these issues. How is this possible? I'm certainly not an expert, but I want to explore this topic a bit further in my next post, considering both public libraries and university libraries like Zimmerman that are more limited in access.

Failure of DOJ to Disclose Fact May Alter Supreme Court Decision

In a rare move yesterday, the United States Justice Department has admitted an error in not informing the United States Supreme Court of a material fact that may have affected a pending case. The New York Times reports that the Justice Department’s failure to notify the Court of legislation that makes the rape of a child by a member of the military a capital offense caused Justice Kennedy to write an opinion in Kennedy v. Louisiana that contained mistaken facts.

In the Supreme Court case, the constitutionality of the death penalty being applied to child rapists was challenged. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that such a penalty is improper. However, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, set forth as part of the reasoning for this decision the fact that only six (6) states allow a person to be sentenced to death for such an offense. In addition, Justice Kennedy found that since child rape was not a capital offense under federal law, Louisiana’s imposition of the death penalty was unconstitutional.

However, prior to the ruling, Congress had set forth that, as far as the military is concerned, child rape is a capital offense. Additionally, President Bush issued an executive order which added child rape as a capital offense to the Manual for Courts-Martial. Government lawyers failed to inform the Supreme Court, whom they knew was hearing this challenge, that child rape, at least in some circumstance, was a capital offense under federal law, leading the Court to include this misstatement in its opinion.

The Solicitor General’s office did not file a brief with the Court, and none of the briefs filed by others brought this fact to the attention of the Court. After the opinion was issued, this error was pointed out on an individual’s military law blog, and then later by the New York Times. Until such time, it is presumed that the Supreme Court justices had no knowledge of their error.

Parties to a case can request a rehearing in front of the Supreme Court. With these new facts being brought to light, it would seem likely that Louisiana would ask for such a rehearing. If so, it remains uncertain as to whether any change in the ruling would be made. Additionally, there may be questions as to whether the addition of child rape to the list of military capital offenses is constitutional.

It seems interesting that such a seemingly major error was made in a case such as this. It is implausible to think that the Supreme Court has the time to stay up on every law and change Congress makes, but it seems that many were aware of the case docket and issues within the Department of Justice. To not inform the Court of such a material fact has most likely rendered a decision that would be different had the item been disclosed. Especially with the Court divided 5-4, all it would take would be for this information to sway one Justice for the decision to be reversed. Whether the decision is reversed or not, it is hoped that, at the least, the case be heard again and judged with all relevant facts being disclosed to the Court.

Supreme Court Issues Ruling on 2nd Amendment

The United States Supreme Court has just issued their opinion in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. In the case, the District of Columbia’s prohibition against the possession of firearms and requiring that shotguns and rifles be kept disassembled under trigger lock was challenged. Writing the majority opinion, Justice Scalia found that the 2^nd Amendment does protect an individual’s rights to possess arms.

For many, the 2^nd Amendment’s application to individuals, rather than militia, has been a subject of debate over the intentions of the language. However, with today’s decision, the Supreme Court explicitly held that the right extends to all, not just soldiers. Quoting from the Court’s Syllabus:

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

In analyzing the history of the 2^nd Amendment, the majority concludes that the intent of the Amendment was to codify pre-existing rights. The majority uses history and the inclusion of the language “shall not be infringed” as evidence of the understanding of this pre-existing right and how this right was intended to be affected. Finally, the majority sets forth that the debate over whether to keep and bear arms was not over the right’s desirability, but over whether such language even needed to be codified.

In his dissent, Justice Stevens (joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) does not argue that the 2^nd Amendment confers an individual right; his concern is more focused on what the scope of this right is. He contends that the right to keep and bear arms by individuals is unquestioned, but this right does not necessarily confer a right to possession of firearms for uses such as hunting. Justice Stevens argues that the government has the power to limit the scope of the 2^nd Amendment’s applicability, an issue which the majority opinion failed to address in reducing this power. Finally, he argues for respecting precedent, quoting Justice Cardozo:

“[The] labor of judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be reopened in every case, and one could not lay one’s own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him.”

In Justice Breyer’s dissent (joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg), he argues that the scope of the 2^nd Amendment was intended to be for militia-related, not self-defense related, purposes. Also, Justice Breyer seems to set forth a similar argument as Justice Stevens in stating that the government has the power to regulate in the interests of the citizens, as long as any limitation of the Amendment is reasonable and appropriate.

Even with the Court dividing 5-4 on the decision, the effect of the ruling seems rather clear – the 2^nd Amendment provides the right to possess firearms to individuals. By stating this explicitly, and not including any types of exceptions or qualifications to the holding, it would seem that states now have guidance as to their regulations of the ownership of guns.

Even with the explicitness however, it is almost certain that the debate will continue. It will not be surprising to see other jurisdictions attempt to enact legislation in an effort to challenge the ruling, perhaps by further tailoring their laws to be more narrow. However, as long as the current composition of the Court remains as it is, it appears as if this will remain the interpretation of the Amendment.

For more analysis from ScotusBlog, click here.

In Brief: Revisiting Digital Archiving and Lebanese Food Resistance

--Last August, I wrote about D.T. Max’s New Yorker article on Tom Staley and the University of Texas’ Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center. As I indicated, Staley’s perspective on digital archiving remains one of the most notable aspects of the profile. By refusing to offer any material online, as well as referring to the Center’s materials as future “bastions,” he’s taking a firmly traditional position with regards to access and audience.

That’s all well and good—there’s a legitimate argument for having scholars and patrons experience valuable literary collections in person. But the more I think about library technology issues, the question that Ayanna Prevatt-Goldstein asks here seems more relevant: “…what will Staley’s successors collect when no one writes on manual typewriters…any more?” In other words, what happens to the Center’s collections when its collections material will consist of e-mails, Microsoft Word documents, and Web pages? Even if Staley’s successors will follow his course in concentrating upon the modernist period, one would think that collections from younger authors would eventually make the question more urgent.

Of course, digital storage presents its own problems, now least of which is how to provide secure storage for valuable virtual communication and documents that can disappear quite easily (as the White House has aptly demonstrated). But if we believe that digital methods provide “another powerful weapon to the armory of solutions,” then Staley and the Center are working with an incomplete arsenal. And it’s quite legitimate to wonder when that approach will ultimately be costly.

--Also from last year: in this post, I discussed how the Slow Food movement in Lebanon constituted a positive form of “public resistance in the war-torn region.” Another possible form of resistance is Buns and Guns restaurant in Beirut, which has caught the attention of the BBC. In offering dishes named after military weapons, owner Yousef Ibrahim argues that the theme “attracts customers in an unconventional way,” providing them with some humor.

Katie Hunter writes that “recent events in Lebanon are no laughing matter” in light of six deaths earlier in the week. She notes (as does the BBC) that Ibrahim is a Hezbollah supporter, and operates his restaurant in a neighborhood with strong Hezbollah sentiment. From an ideological standpoint, is there more to Buns and Guns than just humor? It’s hard to say, but perhaps offering “RPG” sandwiches is a small way of using food to reconcile the violence that Beirut has witnessed over the past couple of years.

Zimbabwe election troubles continue

Zimbabwe’s main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), has formally withdrawn presidential candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, from Friday’s run-off election. A hand delivered letter signed by Tsvangirai was taken to the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission.

"The situation ... now is very different from what has been experienced in this country since independence," Tsvangirai wrote. "The violence, intimidation, death, destruction of property is just too much for anyone to dream of a free and fair election, let alone expect our people to be able to freely and independently express to free themselves. For this reason, my party and I have resolved that we cannot be party to this flawed process."

Mugabe's spokesman, George Charamba, has said that Friday's vote will happen, even without Tsvangirai.

President Mugabe, 84, made it clear at a rally today that there is "only one thing for us to accomplish... it's the legal process on the 27th of June."

Tsvangirai got more votes than Mugabe in the March 29 election, but failed to gather enough to avoid a runoff.

His decision to abandon his presidential campaign gives an apparent victory to Mugabe, who has been Zimbabwe's only leader since it gained independence from Britain in 1980.

Observers are worried that the violence will continue to spiral out of control. One ominous sign is the withdrawal of independent monitors who would be able to observe and protect voters at the polls. There have been reports that people in the Musana Communal Lands, in the Bindura / Shamva area (Mashonaland Central), have had their hands cut off.

On Monday, the U.N. Security Council unanimously condemned the Zimbabwean government because of the violence that has continued in advance of the election runoff. To read Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made the following remarks on Zimbabwe, click here.

It is disappointing to learn the Tsvangirai was forced to withdraw from the election; however, can anyone blame him? When Mugabe claims that “only God” will end his reign, it is pointless for Tsvangirai to think that he would live to serve even if he won on Friday. The elections are not fair and free, and that’s a tragedy for Zimbabwe, for Africa, and for the world.

For more on the Zimbabwe Election . . .

Zimbabwe Election turmoil continues

ANC 'dismayed' by Zimbabwe crisis

Doctors' Religion and Their Refusal to Perform Medical Procedures

The Washington Post has an article this morning regarding yet another interesting issue before judges in California. The court is being asked to determine whether doctors can refuse medical treatment to patients based on the doctors’ religious beliefs.

The issue apparently arose when a gay woman sought fertility treatment from two doctors. The Plaintiff in the case stated that she had her civil rights violated and is alleging that the doctors refused treatment as “it was against their religion to perform insemination on a lesbian.” The doctors replied by stating that the fact Plaintiff was gay played no part in their decision, as the insemination of a single woman, no matter their sexual orientation, contravenes their religion.

Defendants’ lawyer claims that, “Freedom of religion absolutely protects all of their conduct in this case. There are two areas in medical care where freedom of religion is invoked most clearly: in the creation of life and the termination of life." He believes that doctors should have the right to exercise their religious beliefs in procedures involving either life or death. The Plaintiff’s lawyer does not necessarily disagree with this; she claims, however, that if a doctor is to refuse to perform such procedures based on their religious beliefs, this refusal must be applied to all patients and not just a specific group.

It is obvious in this case that these doctors are preventing a select class of individuals, namely single females, access to medical procedures. Depending on how the California State Supreme Court rules, there could be “far-reaching consequences for doctors and businesses, and for unwed women, particularly lesbians, trying to conceive.”

With California’s recent same sex marriage decision and the severity of the potential issues in this case, it would seem that the court would most likely side with the Plaintiff. If this turns out to be a refusal based on sexual orientation rather than marital status, it would seem that the state has already put in place measures to attempt to equalize the rights of gays living in the state, and allowing such selectivity in performing medical procedures would be a step backwards in such attempts. Even if this turns out to be an issue based on anything other than sexual orientation, to allow doctors to refuse patients treatment due to the doctors’ religious beliefs could lead to effects outside of abortion and fertilization treatments; some doctors may claim that their religion prevents them from treating a murderer or other criminal, causing delay in a life saving operation.

However, the issue becomes cloudy in a case like this as the fertilization treatment is obviously not a life saving procedure and not an emergency. Clients have the option to look for a doctor who will provide the treatments should they initially be refused based on the doctor’s religious beliefs. Clients in such cases have a conscious choice of where they are being treated and can select the doctor they feel comfortable with.

The trick for the court will be to ensure that their ruling does not have unintended effects such as those mentioned above and in the article. If they rule against Defendants and disallow selective treatment, it would seem that this would send a clear message to all doctors in all areas of the state on what the proper procedure is. If the court rules in favor of Defendants, again it would seem that a clear cut rule would be in place. However, if the court decides to delineate between elective and life-saving procedures, the ruling may become more ambiguous; in such a case, the court would most likely have to include language in their opinion limiting and/or specifying the applicability of religious based decisions in the medical profession.

The Effects of Ohio's Payday Lending Reform

Now that Governor Ted Strickland has signed House Bill 545, Ohio’s landmark payday lending reform law, what happens to lenders within the state? It likely is quite simple: door-closing time. While Dayton Business Journal’s Matt Roth wrote last month that the future of payday loans in Ohio is “hazy,” his article headline—“Payday lenders prepare to close up shop”—is telling.

Roth does have a point about uncertainty; as he writes, the state’s Small Loan Act allows for “origination fees” that might be enough to keep larger lenders alive. Still, it’s helpful to consider the situation of Oregon’s payday lenders. Last year, Oregon legislators passed a bill that capped loan interest rates at 36 percent, while allowing for an origination fee of up to $30 for a 31-day minimum loan. This was enough for many lenders to start jumping ship almost immediately. Less than six weeks after the bill took effect, 60 of them were already out of business. By September, that number was above 100; in March, the chain Check into Cash announced that they were closing their remaining stores in the state.

In comparison, Ohio has more lending stores (over 1,600 as of last year) and more of a potential customer base. Yet Ohio’s reform law is also more stringent than Oregon’s, with a capped rate of 28 percent. Moreover, origination fee limits under the Small Loan Act are smaller than those of Oregon. This is why it’s unsurprising that the lenders quoted in Roth’s article paint a bleak picture of their future.

And—putting on my editorial hat—that’s a good thing. Payday lenders and their advocates protest that they provide a vital, beneficent community service, one that would otherwise leave those in need of short-term loans high and dry. This is a blatantly dishonest argument. There is nothing vital or beneficent about a predatory system that targets vulnerable clients whom quickly fall into “debt traps.” It’s also remarkably cynical to suggest that consumers have no other alternatives to such a system. Credit unions and counseling services are much better alternatives, both in terms of financial cost and general goodwill.

Ohio citizens have every right to celebrate the potential end of the payday loan era.

Ohio Considers Constitutionality of Its Lethal Injection Method

After the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of lethal injection in April, a Lorain County Court of Common Pleas Court ruled Tuesday that Ohio must change its lethal injection formula. Judge James Burge held that the current formula does not meet Ohio’s requirement that “an inmate’s death be painless”.

The current procedure employed by the state requires three steps: (1) the inmate is rendered unconscious; (2) the convict is given a muscle-paralyzer; and, (3) the final injection is given which stops the heart. If any one of these steps is performed incorrectly or is not effective, it is argued that the inmate will suffer much pain prior to death.

In order to comply with state law, Judge Burge has suggested that the procedure be reduced to one injection – “a single massive dose of anesthesia” sufficient to kill the inmate. According to the Judge, "A single massive dose of sodium thiopental or another barbiturate or narcotic drug will cause certain death, reasonably quickly, and with no risk of abrogating the substantive right of the condemned person to expect and be afforded the painless death mandated by the law." The procedure would limit the number of painful injections, but would prolong the process.

With the ruling by Burge, it is now up to the Ohio Attorney General, the Department of Corrections and the Lorain County Prosecutor to determine the true effects of this ruling. Also to be determined is whether state law will need to be amended to remove the phrase “or combination of drugs" from Ohio’s law.

The Supreme Court ruling as to whether lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment “only directly applied to the southeastern state of Kentucky, where two convicts initially brought the case.” Ohio, unlike Kentucky and the remaining forty-eight states, requires that "death by lethal injection must be caused quickly and painlessly." Even so, some experts believe that the Ohio ruling may provide guidelines to other states in deciding their own lethal injection questions.

After the decision by the United States Supreme Court, it will be interesting to see how this ruling is applied and the actual ramifications it will have upon Ohio law and death penalty procedures. With the requirement in ORC 2949.22 that lethal injection is to cause death “quickly and painlessly”, it is still not certain if the current method (potential pain) or the method suggested by Judge Burge (quickness) actually follow this law. I am sure that many, in Ohio and outside the state, will be following this matter to see how it is ultimately resolved.

Review of Jeff Sharlet's The Family

A stuffy courthouse in Dayton, Tennessee was supposed to have been the burial ground of American fundamentalism in the public sphere. The Scopes “monkey” trial in July 1925 did result in a legal victory for William Jennings Bryan and his fellow believers. But Bryan died less than a week later, and media coverage of the trial characterized fundamentalism as rural belief that was out of touch with the American mainstream. Its adherents retreated in response, creating a subculture with its own colleges and church organizations.

Historians have affirmed the facts above for decades, to the point where they’ve become conventional wisdom. But what if they don’t reflect the whole story? What if there also have been fundamentalists that not only remained “in the world” (so to speak), but also established themselves within the upper echelons of governmental power? And what if their power and influence became such that they helped destabilize the New Deal, played key roles in anti-Communist foreign policy during the Cold War, and supported numerous bloodthirsty dictators?

This is Jeff Sharlet’s stunning claim in The Family, one of the most important books on American religion and politics to appear this year. Sharlet is a talented religion journalist, and he capably synthesizes much of his reporting from the last several years. Relying on a keen sense of history and literature, he also provides a cogent meditation on democracy, power, and myths of American nationalism.

The central subject of Sharlet’s study is a network called the Family (formerly the Fellowship), which he refers to as an “elite” or “avant-garde” branch of the fundamentalist movement. The Fellowship began taking shape in 1935 through the efforts of Seattle businessman Abraham (Abram) Vereide. Concerned about increasing labor unrest and the big-government politics of the New Deal, he formed “breakfast prayer meetings” for a select group of like-minded colleagues. Their organizing principle was “the Idea”: it wasn’t the “down and out” in need of God the most, but the “up and out,” the powerful leaders who could shape the world in God’s image.

It isn’t surprising, therefore, that as the Fellowship grew in power and influence, their skewed theology led to self-serving and unethical stances. After Abram recruited several members of Congress to join his Washington, D.C. “Breakfast Group” in the 1940s, he convinced them that anti-labor legislation was in line with God’s will. More egregious were his diplomatic efforts with and on behalf of German war criminals after World War II. Communism was a different story, as Abram’s views “ran parallel to and often infused American Cold War tactics,” with repentant Nazi key men joining his cause as allies.

Nevertheless, the Fellowship’s means of growth after Doug Coe became its president in the 1960s is perhaps most damning of all. As Sharlet writes, Coe, unlike Abram, “never lied to himself about the virtues of lack thereof of the top men he was courting.” Accordingly, he was comfortable forming “prayer cells” with men such as Haiti’s brutal “Papa Doc” Duvalier, using the Idea as a means of gaining the power of their diplomatic aid. Even as Suharto of Indonesia ruthlessly killed his own citizens and conducted genocide against East Timor, Coe remained silent despite his personal ties to the regime. So also with regard to Somalia’s Siad Biarre, a recipient of Coe’s aid whose mass burning of arable land before his exile in 1991 led to the country’s horrific famine.

That Sharlet was able to uncover this much evidence is impressive considering the hidden nature of his subject. The Billy Graham Center Archives contains over six hundred boxes of Fellowship material up to the early 1970s. But the collection’s abrupt end also reflects Coe’s deliberate decision at that time to make the network “invisible.” Their members now commit nothing to paper, their lone current public event is the annual National Prayer Breakfast, and one can only become a member through a trusted recommendation.

Through both good contacts and good fortune, Sharlet was able to join Ivanwald—a “training” house in Washington that the Family runs for young men with leadership potential—for a time shortly after 9/11. The first section of The Family is a reprisal of his 2003 Harper’s essay “Jesus Plus Nothing”; he documents his gradual discovery of Ivanwald’s purpose, the Family’s influence, and Coe’s absolutist vision (all of about which he was unaware when joining). In short, this is a subject that demanded unconventional reporting (as he wasn’t on assignment while at Ivanwald) and historical legwork. To his credit, Sharlet ably accomplishes both, demonstrating both thorough research skills and elegant—at times, outright beautiful—prose.

Where, then, does “populist” fundamentalism sit in relation to the elite faith of the Family? Sharlet contends that the two branches actually merge at points, creating a “Popular Front” in America’s culture wars. One point of convergence concerns “cells,” or small groups oriented around a set of common interests. The Family’s network is comprised of private political cells, where its members formulate insights and policy that favor their own elite status. Yet leaders such as Ted Haggard made cells an integral part of “free-market theology” within fundamentalist churches, which now commonly offer an array of small groups as a form of consumer “choice.”

Perhaps needless to say, this particular argument (as well as the book in general) will upset a lot of evangelicals. Most of evangelicalism does not view itself as fundamentalist, and it attempts to make that distinction clear. Therefore, it often embraces a narrow definition of what being a fundamentalist means. Sharlet, on the other hand, is arguing for a definition that is more wide-ranging. He finds that its tendencies can exist among American evangelicals who would claim otherwise. But they also are present within the ideology and actions of the Family, which isn’t really an evangelical network at all.

As a result, evangelical critiques of The Family will likely center on the idea that Sharlet is overgeneralizing. If they do, then two charges will be fairly predictable. The first is that Sharlet is using “fundamentalist” as a means of attack, or at least promoting attacks, upon evangelical belief systems. A second (and slightly more elaborate) variation is that he is cooking up a conspiracy that belies his political and religious bias. As an example, Books and Culture columnist Alan Jacobs essentially made both charges during a heated exchange with Sharlet last year.

These particular responses, regardless of where they originate, are flatly wrong. Sharlet’s observations about religion have been polarizing for quite some time, and he doesn’t hide his personal perspective as a leftist and a Jewish secularist. But his work certainly isn’t—and never has been—about grinding axes against religious belief, as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens recently have done. Nor is he concerned with uncovering any sort of conspiracy, especially since he states more than once in the book that the Family isn’t a conspiracy at all.

Perhaps worse than such criticisms being wrong are that they miss the forest for the trees. A close reading indicates how the Family uses a twisted fundamentalism to justify a lust for power and blind eye for violence. It’s this application of the Idea for undemocratic ends, and its influence upon popular religion, that should be of most concern. The same is true regarding Doug Coe’s decision to “submerge” the network into secrecy; readers should then wonder about the theological and political implications of Sam Brownback being a member and Hillary Clinton a “friend.”

Finally, it’s important to remember that The Family is a challenge to liberals as much as conservatives, and nonbelievers as much as the faithful. Nowhere is this more evident than the concluding paragraph, where Sharlet calls for “not simply a different answer, secular myths opposed to fundamentalism’s, but a question.” This call to let go of easy assumptions, to be willing to fight for an open democracy and fair religious practices, is a fitting ending to a book that is simply outstanding in its research, narrative, and conclusions.

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.