We have, for the time being, witnessed a merciful decline in the cost of food since last spring, when a confluence of factors triggered worldwide price increases. Yet as New Yorker financial analyst James Surowiecki writes, "the recent price drop doesn’t provide any long-term respite from the threat of food shortages or future price spikes...we’re still having a hard time insuring that people simply get enough to eat, and we seem to be more vulnerable to supply shocks than ever." For those who can afford it, paying more for food can be a good thing, particularly in the case of the U.S. Journalist and writer Michael Pollan notes in last year's essay "Unhappy Meals" that "Americans spend, on average, less than 10 percent of their income on food, down from 24 percent in 1947, and less than the citizens of any other nation." Still, unstable food prices mean that more people have less to eat.
While there aren't any easy solutions to avoiding another food crisis, it's instructive that Pollan has been a strong advocate for domestic food policy reform, while also urging his readers to make personal changes in their eating habits. This combination of thinking structurally and individually is what I enjoyed about a recent post from Barbara Fisher's blog Tigers and Strawberries. Fisher is a leader of the local food movement, and in answering the question of what to say about food and farming with "one minute of [President-elect] Obama's undivided attention," she responds thusly:
"I would suggest that federal support for urban community gardens and farms could help the urban poor produce some of their own fresh food, and perhaps a program of tax credits for suburban and small town families who turn some or all of their yards to food production would encourage the middle class to not only produce some of their own food as well. Educational programs to help non-gardeners learn the skills needed to grow food, such as the current County Extension Agencies could be expanded so that there was more community outreach and involvement, as well as tying the Extension offices to public school Edible Schoolyard programs across the country.
"Americans really want to roll up our sleeves and do something to help make our country great again, and these sorts of self-help programs will get people moving in a positive direction again, as well as providing good, fresh food to people who may otherwise have no access to it at all. "
That first sentence--federal funding and tax credits for producing food locally--is particularly striking. Obviously, neither proposal would ameliorate the type of problems that Surowiecki identifies within the global food market. But with proper planning, they would allow citizens, regardless of economic status, to participate in the growing of their own food. As Fisher points out, such policies would have environmental and educational benefits; they also would provide a healthy source of food without the use of industrial farming's less desirable growing methods, such as heavy fertilizer and pesticide use.
While it's unlikely that we will see federally subsidized community gardens anytime soon, local governments can certainly promote local food habits without having to spend a lot. Terre Haute, Indiana offers a good example. Thanks to the efforts of many people (including my father Pat Martin, a city planner), Terre Haute opened its Community Garden to the public in April. The garden has several other sponsors in addition to the city (with Indiana State University being the primary sponsor); it asks members to donate a "portion of their produce" to a local food bank; forbids the use of pesticides, herbicides, inseticides, and fungicides; and, for this year's growing season, offered education programs and workshops related to gardening. Perhaps the only drawback is that the garden includes seventy-one plots, which limits potential participants.
So Barbara Fisher's idea is practical and more than feasible to implement, even if it will take a lot of approaches to, in her words, insure "good, fresh food to people who may otherwise have no access to it at all."
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Update on Nebraska Safe Haven Law
Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman signed into law yesterday a bill adding a 30-day age limit to a safe-haven law that allowed 36 children — including teenagers as old as 17 — to be abandoned at state hospitals.
Hours after the Governor signed the law, which went into effect today, a 14-year-old California boy was dropped off at a Nebraska hospital. He will mark the last teen to be dropped off after the safe-haven law established an age limit.
The law was meant to prevent newborns from being dumped in trash bins or worse.
Hospital officials have described children crying hysterically as they pleaded with their parents not to leave them.
Five of the children have been from other states, including from as far away as Florida and Michigan. The law was not revised to preclude infants from other states from being dropped off.
Hours after the Governor signed the law, which went into effect today, a 14-year-old California boy was dropped off at a Nebraska hospital. He will mark the last teen to be dropped off after the safe-haven law established an age limit.
The law was meant to prevent newborns from being dumped in trash bins or worse.
Hospital officials have described children crying hysterically as they pleaded with their parents not to leave them.
Five of the children have been from other states, including from as far away as Florida and Michigan. The law was not revised to preclude infants from other states from being dropped off.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Two Updates
The past two weeks I have written about Proposition 8 (here and here), and the week before these articles I had written on Nebraska’s safe haven statute (here). As new developments have arisen with both of these issues, I would like to take the time this week to bring these latest updates to the attention of the readers of this blog.
Proposition 8
Being reported today on this issue is the fact that the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear challenges to this recently passed ban on same-sex marriages. Three lawsuits have been filed in California challenging that the Plaintiffs’ civil rights have been violated with the passage of Proposition 8. Challengers to Proposition 8 also claim that the State had improperly bypassed the Court’s judicial authority by allowing voters to effectively overturn the previous California Supreme Court.
Arguments in the case are due by December 19, and responses are due by January 5, 2009. Oral arguments, at the earliest, will be heard in March. While this suit is pending, the Court has not authorized the continuation of same-sex marriages; allowance of such marriages will not be allowed unless the Court finds in favor of those opposing Proposition 8. During these hearings, the Court will also determine the validity of those marriages performed after the Court’s original ruling, but before the passage of Proposition 8.
Nebraska Safe Haven Statute
The Nebraska Legislature has reportedly voted 14-6 to send a newly worded safe haven statute for second approval. The language has been amended to set an age limit of 30 days for those children covered under this statute. Such language will create an age limit in Nebraska, the only state that had previously not set such a limit. The final vote on this language is scheduled for Friday, after which the Bill would go to the Governor who has already expressed approval for these changes.
Proposition 8
Being reported today on this issue is the fact that the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear challenges to this recently passed ban on same-sex marriages. Three lawsuits have been filed in California challenging that the Plaintiffs’ civil rights have been violated with the passage of Proposition 8. Challengers to Proposition 8 also claim that the State had improperly bypassed the Court’s judicial authority by allowing voters to effectively overturn the previous California Supreme Court.
Arguments in the case are due by December 19, and responses are due by January 5, 2009. Oral arguments, at the earliest, will be heard in March. While this suit is pending, the Court has not authorized the continuation of same-sex marriages; allowance of such marriages will not be allowed unless the Court finds in favor of those opposing Proposition 8. During these hearings, the Court will also determine the validity of those marriages performed after the Court’s original ruling, but before the passage of Proposition 8.
Nebraska Safe Haven Statute
The Nebraska Legislature has reportedly voted 14-6 to send a newly worded safe haven statute for second approval. The language has been amended to set an age limit of 30 days for those children covered under this statute. Such language will create an age limit in Nebraska, the only state that had previously not set such a limit. The final vote on this language is scheduled for Friday, after which the Bill would go to the Governor who has already expressed approval for these changes.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Why did Indiana go blue? (Part 2)
Another reason for Obama's Hoosier success concerns the evangelical vote. Spiritual Politics blogger Mark Silk notes that while the state's "evangelicals favored Bush by 77-22" in 2004, McCain won "by only 66-41 [sic; should be 31]." In contrast, evangelicals in Southern states generally broke for McCain by a larger margin than they did for Bush in 2004. (Mississippi's 90-9 split is the most extreme example.) Silk offers two different possibilities for this regional difference. The first:
"The most likely explanation for what happened in the South and Southern Crossroads is the persistence of racial prejudice in those regions. It's also the case that this is where evangelicals are most heavily organized and mobilized as Republican partisans. But in the Midwest, there is Obama's identity as a Midwesterner, and the common Midwestern religious sensibility that he appealed to, to take into account."
Silk also mentions in the comments section to his post that since "nearly 40 percent of mainliners answer yes to being born-again or evangelical Christians...it could be that the differential has to do with large numbers of [Indiana] mainliners voting for Obama, rather than 'true' evangelicals."
Both of these possibilities deserve some context. There is a very, very strong correlation between church attendance and political voting patterns. Protestants and Catholics who attend church on a weekly basis are much more likely to vote for Republicans; those who attend church less, practice another religion, or are non-religious are more inclined to vote for Democrats. To demonstrate, here's a chart that compares this year's "pew gap" with that of 2004. The pew gap remained fairly constant from 2004 to this year, but Obama, crucially, was able to make up a little bit of ground. Since evangelicals typically are every-Sunday church attenders, they factor heavily into this overall equation.
Regarding Silk's second point, the standard exit poll determiner of an evangelical is someone who answers "yes" to the question of whether they consider themselves to be a "born-again Christian," as he alludes. In Indiana, this means that while voters from actual evangelical denominations (for example, Southern Baptists and Pentecostals) will answer "yes," there is likely also a significant percentage of voters from mainline denominations that will self-identify as evangelical (for example, Methodists). This means that while mainliners adhere to the "pew gap" pattern I mention above, they tend to be a bit more flexible politically (even in a relatively conservative state like Indiana). So if the percentage of mainliners within Indiana's evangelical vote was high for this election, then that would, in theory, present slightly more favorable conditions for Obama.
And this leads us to Silk's first point. With a larger percentage of "true" evangelicals in Southern states--evangelicals that identify more as Republicans, and who might have more issues with Obama's race--the evangelical vote breaks most heavily for McCain. Yet in Indiana, the communitarian religious impulse, combined with a higher possibility of mainliners voting evangelical, becomes more important. An instructive example appears in a post that Silk made in late April as the Jeremiah Wright fiasco was still unfolding. Silk notes that Obama had attended a service at St. Luke United Methodist Church in Indianapolis. The sermon he links to that St. Luke pastor M. Kent Miller had presented a few weeks before Obama's visit celebrates the church's "big tent congregation" and ability to overcome racial barriers through honest dialogue and collective worship.
Neither the evangelical vote nor Obama's spread-the-field canvassing offer a full answer of why Indiana went blue. Yet they both signify how Obama deserves credit for running a very strong campaign, as well as how his political and personal identify proved favorable to Hoosier voters.
"The most likely explanation for what happened in the South and Southern Crossroads is the persistence of racial prejudice in those regions. It's also the case that this is where evangelicals are most heavily organized and mobilized as Republican partisans. But in the Midwest, there is Obama's identity as a Midwesterner, and the common Midwestern religious sensibility that he appealed to, to take into account."
Silk also mentions in the comments section to his post that since "nearly 40 percent of mainliners answer yes to being born-again or evangelical Christians...it could be that the differential has to do with large numbers of [Indiana] mainliners voting for Obama, rather than 'true' evangelicals."
Both of these possibilities deserve some context. There is a very, very strong correlation between church attendance and political voting patterns. Protestants and Catholics who attend church on a weekly basis are much more likely to vote for Republicans; those who attend church less, practice another religion, or are non-religious are more inclined to vote for Democrats. To demonstrate, here's a chart that compares this year's "pew gap" with that of 2004. The pew gap remained fairly constant from 2004 to this year, but Obama, crucially, was able to make up a little bit of ground. Since evangelicals typically are every-Sunday church attenders, they factor heavily into this overall equation.
Regarding Silk's second point, the standard exit poll determiner of an evangelical is someone who answers "yes" to the question of whether they consider themselves to be a "born-again Christian," as he alludes. In Indiana, this means that while voters from actual evangelical denominations (for example, Southern Baptists and Pentecostals) will answer "yes," there is likely also a significant percentage of voters from mainline denominations that will self-identify as evangelical (for example, Methodists). This means that while mainliners adhere to the "pew gap" pattern I mention above, they tend to be a bit more flexible politically (even in a relatively conservative state like Indiana). So if the percentage of mainliners within Indiana's evangelical vote was high for this election, then that would, in theory, present slightly more favorable conditions for Obama.
And this leads us to Silk's first point. With a larger percentage of "true" evangelicals in Southern states--evangelicals that identify more as Republicans, and who might have more issues with Obama's race--the evangelical vote breaks most heavily for McCain. Yet in Indiana, the communitarian religious impulse, combined with a higher possibility of mainliners voting evangelical, becomes more important. An instructive example appears in a post that Silk made in late April as the Jeremiah Wright fiasco was still unfolding. Silk notes that Obama had attended a service at St. Luke United Methodist Church in Indianapolis. The sermon he links to that St. Luke pastor M. Kent Miller had presented a few weeks before Obama's visit celebrates the church's "big tent congregation" and ability to overcome racial barriers through honest dialogue and collective worship.
Neither the evangelical vote nor Obama's spread-the-field canvassing offer a full answer of why Indiana went blue. Yet they both signify how Obama deserves credit for running a very strong campaign, as well as how his political and personal identify proved favorable to Hoosier voters.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Protests of Proposition 8 Continue Around the Country
With the defeat of California’s Proposition 8 in last week’s election, many continue to push to regain the rights they briefly had within the state. However, California is not the only state where such battles are being waged. A number of articles this week (here, here, here and here), point to one move towards actual achievement of these goals, but also to other moves that may or may not aid in achieving this right in other states.
In Connecticut, a judge on Wednesday issued an order allowing for same sex couples to marry within the state. Upon the issuance of this order, it has been reported that many same sex couples began applying immediately for licenses. With the passage of Proposition 8, there are once again only two states which allow such marriages – Massachusetts and Connecticut.
In Utah, supporters of same sex marriage arranged protests at Mt. Hope Church. Protesters in Utah have chosen mainly Mormon churches as these churches had spent millions of dollars in support of Proposition 8.
In New York City, a large number of protesters surrounded the LDS Manhattan temple in opposition to the temple’s involvement in the passage of Proposition 8. The article also mentions that a protest in all 50 states is scheduled for this upcoming Saturday (November 15, 2008).
Finally, in Michigan, protesters have also chosen to stage their demonstrations outside of a church. However, unlike the demonstrations in Utah and New York City, the demonstration in Lansing seems (based solely only on what is presented in the articles) to have gone a bit too far. It is reported that there were two groups – an outside group who held a legitimate protest, and an inside group. The troubling aspect of this protest is that the inside group apparently pulled a fire alarm, dropped leaflets and yelled at parishioners.
It is quite understandable that many were upset with the passage of Proposition 8 last week. However, demonstrations such as those in Lansing seem to be counterproductive to the cause. I doubt that the Connecticut judge would have been influenced by an angry mob gathered outside (or worse inside) the courtroom; instead, in Connecticut they chose to follow the proper procedures to attempt to have same sex marriages approved.
Protesters have First Amendment rights, and so I see little problem with the protests in places such as Utah or New York City. However, I am not sure that after-the-fact protesting will do any more than send a message of anger to these churches. And, once such protests are finished, the task will remain to attempt to legalize same sex marriage through proper legal channels. The more protests approach that of the scale in Lansing, the more difficult finding support through these proper legal channels may be.
In Connecticut, a judge on Wednesday issued an order allowing for same sex couples to marry within the state. Upon the issuance of this order, it has been reported that many same sex couples began applying immediately for licenses. With the passage of Proposition 8, there are once again only two states which allow such marriages – Massachusetts and Connecticut.
In Utah, supporters of same sex marriage arranged protests at Mt. Hope Church. Protesters in Utah have chosen mainly Mormon churches as these churches had spent millions of dollars in support of Proposition 8.
In New York City, a large number of protesters surrounded the LDS Manhattan temple in opposition to the temple’s involvement in the passage of Proposition 8. The article also mentions that a protest in all 50 states is scheduled for this upcoming Saturday (November 15, 2008).
Finally, in Michigan, protesters have also chosen to stage their demonstrations outside of a church. However, unlike the demonstrations in Utah and New York City, the demonstration in Lansing seems (based solely only on what is presented in the articles) to have gone a bit too far. It is reported that there were two groups – an outside group who held a legitimate protest, and an inside group. The troubling aspect of this protest is that the inside group apparently pulled a fire alarm, dropped leaflets and yelled at parishioners.
It is quite understandable that many were upset with the passage of Proposition 8 last week. However, demonstrations such as those in Lansing seem to be counterproductive to the cause. I doubt that the Connecticut judge would have been influenced by an angry mob gathered outside (or worse inside) the courtroom; instead, in Connecticut they chose to follow the proper procedures to attempt to have same sex marriages approved.
Protesters have First Amendment rights, and so I see little problem with the protests in places such as Utah or New York City. However, I am not sure that after-the-fact protesting will do any more than send a message of anger to these churches. And, once such protests are finished, the task will remain to attempt to legalize same sex marriage through proper legal channels. The more protests approach that of the scale in Lansing, the more difficult finding support through these proper legal channels may be.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Whales lose as Navy wins case over sonar
From the Wall Street Journal:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday lifted restrictions on the Navy's use of sonar in training exercises off the California coast, a defeat for environmental groups who say the sonar can harm whales.
The court, in its first decision of the term, voted 5-4 that the Navy needs to conduct realistic training exercises to respond to potential threats by enemy submarines.
Environmental groups had persuaded lower federal courts in California to impose restrictions on sonar use in submarine-hunting exercises to protect whales and other marine mammals.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
The court did not deal with the merits of the claims put forward by the environmental groups. It said, rather, that federal courts abused their discretion by ordering the Navy to limit sonar use in some cases and to turn it off altogether in others.
A species of whales called beaked whales is particularly susceptible to harm from sonar, which can cause them to strand themselves onshore.
To read the full opinion, click here.
To read a transcript of oral arguments, click here.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday lifted restrictions on the Navy's use of sonar in training exercises off the California coast, a defeat for environmental groups who say the sonar can harm whales.
The court, in its first decision of the term, voted 5-4 that the Navy needs to conduct realistic training exercises to respond to potential threats by enemy submarines.
Environmental groups had persuaded lower federal courts in California to impose restrictions on sonar use in submarine-hunting exercises to protect whales and other marine mammals.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
The court did not deal with the merits of the claims put forward by the environmental groups. It said, rather, that federal courts abused their discretion by ordering the Navy to limit sonar use in some cases and to turn it off altogether in others.
A species of whales called beaked whales is particularly susceptible to harm from sonar, which can cause them to strand themselves onshore.
To read the full opinion, click here.
To read a transcript of oral arguments, click here.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Why did Indiana go blue? (Part 1)
One of the more stunning aspects of the presidential election returns came around 2:00 AM on Wednesday, when networks began calling Indiana for Barack Obama. Having grown up in western Indiana, I learned at a young age that Indiana always chose Republican candidates for president, despite the fact that Democrats are quite competitive at the state level. (The last Democratic presidential candidate to buck this trend was Lyndon Johnson in 1964.) This year was seemingly going to be no different.
So why did Indiana go blue? It's a bit early to ascertain a thorough answer, but at least two reasons are suggestive. The first emerges from Walter Shapiro's article "Turning Indiana Blue," which Salon published just over two weeks before the election. As Shapiro writes:
"...if Obama wins the state, more than anything it will be due to the best voter-contact operation Indiana has ever seen. Even Murray Clark, the Indiana Republican chairman, says with grudging admiration in his voice, 'Obama's done these things right. That's how he nearly beat Hillary in the primary...' "
"Finding Democratic voters in fast-growing suburban Hamilton County, just north of Indianapolis, seems as unlikely as spying a herd of giraffes frolicking in a mall parking lot. In 2004, Bush rolled up the kind of victory in Hamilton County that Vladimir Putin might envy--obliterating Kerry by 51,000 votes with a 74 to 25 percent margin. Yet Obama has two storefront offices in the county (among 44 offices statewide) and is running an aggressive canvassing operation. This unusual commitment of resources is not lost on the Republicans. 'Obama's campaign has targeted the Doughnut Counties'--local lingo for the eight counties that ring Indianapolis--'particularly Hamilton County,' says Clark, the GOP chairman. 'They are targeting upscale voters, particularly women.' "
And Obama's strategy of campaigning in McCain's political backyard paid off. CNN's county-by-county return map shows that Obama lost Hamilton County by less than 29,000 votes (or 38 to 61 percent). Considering that he won Indiana by less than 26,000 votes, this was an important tactical victory, and an example of what influential Indiana political blogger Brian Howey calls "the greatest political campaign in American history that played out vividly amidst Hoosier cities, towns, taverns and farms." Howey writes in a later article that Obama improved upon John Kerry's 2004 tallies in several other Republican counties as well, thanks to "an audacious, successful game plan that spread the field [in other words, across the entire state]." It also helped that Obama had huge margins in arguably the two most important Democratic counties: Lake County, next to Chicago (67-32, with a 71,000 vote difference), and Indianapolis' Marion County (64 percent, with a 105,000 vote difference).
Next post: Why the evangelical vote was so important.
So why did Indiana go blue? It's a bit early to ascertain a thorough answer, but at least two reasons are suggestive. The first emerges from Walter Shapiro's article "Turning Indiana Blue," which Salon published just over two weeks before the election. As Shapiro writes:
"...if Obama wins the state, more than anything it will be due to the best voter-contact operation Indiana has ever seen. Even Murray Clark, the Indiana Republican chairman, says with grudging admiration in his voice, 'Obama's done these things right. That's how he nearly beat Hillary in the primary...' "
"Finding Democratic voters in fast-growing suburban Hamilton County, just north of Indianapolis, seems as unlikely as spying a herd of giraffes frolicking in a mall parking lot. In 2004, Bush rolled up the kind of victory in Hamilton County that Vladimir Putin might envy--obliterating Kerry by 51,000 votes with a 74 to 25 percent margin. Yet Obama has two storefront offices in the county (among 44 offices statewide) and is running an aggressive canvassing operation. This unusual commitment of resources is not lost on the Republicans. 'Obama's campaign has targeted the Doughnut Counties'--local lingo for the eight counties that ring Indianapolis--'particularly Hamilton County,' says Clark, the GOP chairman. 'They are targeting upscale voters, particularly women.' "
And Obama's strategy of campaigning in McCain's political backyard paid off. CNN's county-by-county return map shows that Obama lost Hamilton County by less than 29,000 votes (or 38 to 61 percent). Considering that he won Indiana by less than 26,000 votes, this was an important tactical victory, and an example of what influential Indiana political blogger Brian Howey calls "the greatest political campaign in American history that played out vividly amidst Hoosier cities, towns, taverns and farms." Howey writes in a later article that Obama improved upon John Kerry's 2004 tallies in several other Republican counties as well, thanks to "an audacious, successful game plan that spread the field [in other words, across the entire state]." It also helped that Obama had huge margins in arguably the two most important Democratic counties: Lake County, next to Chicago (67-32, with a 71,000 vote difference), and Indianapolis' Marion County (64 percent, with a 105,000 vote difference).
Next post: Why the evangelical vote was so important.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Same Sex Marriages Dealt Setback in Tuesday's Election
While America has seemingly embraced change in electing Barack Obama the next President of the United States on Tuesday, voters in three states were apparently not ready to accept full scale changes to what many consider a fundamental right. Voters in California, Florida and Arizona on Tuesday voted to ban gay marriages within their borders.
In California, approximately 52 percent of voters approved Proposition 8, only months after the state’s Supreme Court had ruled in favor of allowing such unions. Although Arizona had rejected such a ban two years ago, bans against allowing same sex marriage won by larger margins than that in California in this past election in both Arizona and Florida.
For those in California, some question whether the marriages performed between the time of the state Supreme Court decision and this vote will remain valid. The state Attorney General has gone on record as saying he believes they will remain valid; however, it is expected that law suits and debate will ensue as to the legality of these unions. The actuality legality of these unions may not be determined for some time, as these battles continue.
Aside from expected legal battles challenging the validity of these California marriages, many in California have already announced their intentions to sue to block the ban. Some opponents of this ban have specifically stated that they would fight this ban through all available methods, even to the United States Supreme Court if possible. Some hope that this issue will eventually appear before the Supreme Court of the United States so that this issue may be resolved once and for all.
With the passage of these measures, along with the passage of a measure in Arkansas which prohibits gay men and women from adopting children, some are questioning the prospects of the ability to obtain overall acceptance of same sex marriage by more states in the near future. Although Massachusetts and Connecticut will still allow same sex marriage, and New York and Rhode Island will still honor such unions, forty states now have laws or constitutional bans on allowing such marriages. With the current trend exhibited by this past election, it seems uncertain that the number of states allowing such marriages will be increased in the foreseeable future.
What five months ago seemed like a great victory for same sex couples has now turned into a crushing defeat. While options do remain open for same sex partners (Massachusetts, Connecticut, civil unions and domestic partnerships), the acceptance and change hoped for does not seem forthcoming. Even as Americans await the inauguration of their first African American President and the promise he makes of change, they seem unable to accept the legal marriage of these same sex couples.
To read the New York Times article, click here.
In California, approximately 52 percent of voters approved Proposition 8, only months after the state’s Supreme Court had ruled in favor of allowing such unions. Although Arizona had rejected such a ban two years ago, bans against allowing same sex marriage won by larger margins than that in California in this past election in both Arizona and Florida.
For those in California, some question whether the marriages performed between the time of the state Supreme Court decision and this vote will remain valid. The state Attorney General has gone on record as saying he believes they will remain valid; however, it is expected that law suits and debate will ensue as to the legality of these unions. The actuality legality of these unions may not be determined for some time, as these battles continue.
Aside from expected legal battles challenging the validity of these California marriages, many in California have already announced their intentions to sue to block the ban. Some opponents of this ban have specifically stated that they would fight this ban through all available methods, even to the United States Supreme Court if possible. Some hope that this issue will eventually appear before the Supreme Court of the United States so that this issue may be resolved once and for all.
With the passage of these measures, along with the passage of a measure in Arkansas which prohibits gay men and women from adopting children, some are questioning the prospects of the ability to obtain overall acceptance of same sex marriage by more states in the near future. Although Massachusetts and Connecticut will still allow same sex marriage, and New York and Rhode Island will still honor such unions, forty states now have laws or constitutional bans on allowing such marriages. With the current trend exhibited by this past election, it seems uncertain that the number of states allowing such marriages will be increased in the foreseeable future.
What five months ago seemed like a great victory for same sex couples has now turned into a crushing defeat. While options do remain open for same sex partners (Massachusetts, Connecticut, civil unions and domestic partnerships), the acceptance and change hoped for does not seem forthcoming. Even as Americans await the inauguration of their first African American President and the promise he makes of change, they seem unable to accept the legal marriage of these same sex couples.
To read the New York Times article, click here.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Issue 5 and the Dishonesty of the Payday Lending Industry
Ohio voters will have no fewer than five statewide ballot measures to consider when they step into the voting booth tomorrow. While Issue 6's proposal of a $600 million casino project has become the most controversial (and costly) measure at this point, we still shouldn't overlook Issue 5 and its implications for payday lending reform. Although it has been less than six months since Governor Strickland signed House Bill 545, a rejection of Issue 5 will repeal the bill's 28 percent interest-rate cap. Consequently, payday lenders would once again be able to charge up to 391 percent interest on short-term loans.
Payday lenders and their supporters that are on the "no" side are primarily relying upon three arguments: 1) payday loans are the only viable option for consumers in need of short-term financing; 2) reform represents unnecessary government interference due to the creation of a database that records loan transactions; and 3) reform will cause lenders to shut their doors, leading to the loss of some 6,000 jobs statewide. As newspaper editorials and columnists around the state have documented, all of these arguments are (perhaps unsurprisingly) disingenuous:
--Cheryl Harris of the Cleveland Plain Dealer notes that the lenders' argument about viable financial options is really an effort to avoid describing how their loans actually work. The truth is that there are short-term alternatives--credit cards, bank and credit union loans, overdraft protection for checking accounts, credit counseling services--that are all better options than pre-reform payday loans. This comparison chart demonstrates why.
--Syndicated columnist Thomas Suddes dismisses the complaint over government interference by writing that "lenders themselves mishandle such data. Cincinnati-based Check 'n Go paid the state of Texas $220,000 in May because Check 'n Go 'exposed customers to indetify-theft [sic] by discarding records in easily accessible trash cans'--records such as borrowers' names, addresses, Social Security and driver's license numbers, and checking account information. It takes a lot to disgust Congress, but payday lenders did."
--Are payday lenders crying wolf when it comes to their claims that 6,000 jobs--their entire in-state workforce--will disappear. If Issue 5 passes, there is a distinct possibility that the industry will have to eliminate some jobs. But it's incredibly unlikely that the number will reach 6,000 because, according to Suddes and the Columbus Dispatch, over 70 percent of the state's payday lenders--1,149 out of around 1,600--have already applied for licenses as small-loans and/or second mortgage operators. Contra their own claims, they won't be vanishing from the state anytime soon.
When we add up the facts, the Dayton Daily News is correct to point out that what payday lenders are arguing is, in a word, "baloney."
UPDATE: Issue 5 has passed, with 63 percent of voters in favor.
Payday lenders and their supporters that are on the "no" side are primarily relying upon three arguments: 1) payday loans are the only viable option for consumers in need of short-term financing; 2) reform represents unnecessary government interference due to the creation of a database that records loan transactions; and 3) reform will cause lenders to shut their doors, leading to the loss of some 6,000 jobs statewide. As newspaper editorials and columnists around the state have documented, all of these arguments are (perhaps unsurprisingly) disingenuous:
--Cheryl Harris of the Cleveland Plain Dealer notes that the lenders' argument about viable financial options is really an effort to avoid describing how their loans actually work. The truth is that there are short-term alternatives--credit cards, bank and credit union loans, overdraft protection for checking accounts, credit counseling services--that are all better options than pre-reform payday loans. This comparison chart demonstrates why.
--Syndicated columnist Thomas Suddes dismisses the complaint over government interference by writing that "lenders themselves mishandle such data. Cincinnati-based Check 'n Go paid the state of Texas $220,000 in May because Check 'n Go 'exposed customers to indetify-theft [sic] by discarding records in easily accessible trash cans'--records such as borrowers' names, addresses, Social Security and driver's license numbers, and checking account information. It takes a lot to disgust Congress, but payday lenders did."
--Are payday lenders crying wolf when it comes to their claims that 6,000 jobs--their entire in-state workforce--will disappear. If Issue 5 passes, there is a distinct possibility that the industry will have to eliminate some jobs. But it's incredibly unlikely that the number will reach 6,000 because, according to Suddes and the Columbus Dispatch, over 70 percent of the state's payday lenders--1,149 out of around 1,600--have already applied for licenses as small-loans and/or second mortgage operators. Contra their own claims, they won't be vanishing from the state anytime soon.
When we add up the facts, the Dayton Daily News is correct to point out that what payday lenders are arguing is, in a word, "baloney."
UPDATE: Issue 5 has passed, with 63 percent of voters in favor.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Nebraska to Amend Their Safe Haven Statute
In the news the past several months there have been reports of parents abandoning their children, as old as 17, in
While Senator White’s statement that “All children deserve our protection” cannot be denied,
Instead of protecting the children, it seems that the only people that are being protected are the parents who have given up and cannot deal with their teenage children any longer. These children are being dropped off at hospitals in
The Future of Google Book Search
Three years ago, the Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers and a handful of authors and publishers filed a class action lawsuit against Google Book Search.
Yesterday, that lawsuit was settled. Google will now be working closely with these industry partners to bring even more of the world's books online. Together Google and the publishers will accomplish far more than any of them could have individually, to the enduring benefit of authors, publishers, researchers and readers alike.
Google has agreed to pay $125 million to start the Book Rights Registry, resolve legal fees from the 3-year-old lawsuits, provide more access to out-of-print books, compensate authors for unauthorized use of their work and find new ways to sell copyrighted books online.
The settlement is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
To read more about the settlement, click here.
Yesterday, that lawsuit was settled. Google will now be working closely with these industry partners to bring even more of the world's books online. Together Google and the publishers will accomplish far more than any of them could have individually, to the enduring benefit of authors, publishers, researchers and readers alike.
Google has agreed to pay $125 million to start the Book Rights Registry, resolve legal fees from the 3-year-old lawsuits, provide more access to out-of-print books, compensate authors for unauthorized use of their work and find new ways to sell copyrighted books online.
The settlement is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
To read more about the settlement, click here.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Proponents of Proposition 8 Targeting Public Schools
With the election just weeks away, proponents of Proposition 8 in
In these commercials, advocates of the proposition worry that schools will be required to teach students about same sex marriage. Proponents of the measure point to instances such as a field trip of first graders, with parental permission, to
However, opponents of Proposition 8 state that schools have already been teaching tolerance of gays and lesbians, long before the Court decision. Children have been taught about such issues as homophobia, discrimination against homosexuals and sexual orientation; whether Proposition 8 passes or not, schools indicate they will continue teaching such subjects.
Many campaign ads focus on the negative and often instill some level of fear into the public. However, as is the case in most instances, the opponents of Proposition 8 provided concrete evidence of the effects this measure will, or rather won’t, have on the education of students.
As presented in the article, “[a]n estimated 52,000 children are being raised by two mothers or two fathers in
Monday, October 13, 2008
John Berry’s “Escape from Reading”: Where to Begin?
To be blunt, John Berry’s September 15 editorial column for Library Journal (“Escape from Reading”) is misguided. Berry begins by mentioning that “I never ‘loved’ reading, the way so many people declare they do,” with his increasingly poor eyesight only making the act “more difficult.” Therefore, as he writes:
“In this new phase of my life, I have begun to view the progress of media and information technology as advancing my liberation from reading, or at least from much of the guilt and drudgery I associate with it.”
The word “liberation” in this sense is a bit peculiar, but isn’t really problematic yet. But Berry further contrasts reading with other (aural-visual) forms of media consumption that he prefers. Reading is “time-consuming,” while new media forms are easier and more efficient. Classic literature full of “lifeless typography,” such as Ulysses and Moby-Dick, was once a proverbial millstone around his neck, while “[b]oth sound and image giver the words more color, more life.” Not liking books once meant negative feelings (guilt, embarrassment, shame), while “I [now] don’t have to...feel guilty because I’ve put down the book to watch the movie.”
So how is Berry’s dislike of reading meaningful for the modern library? As he writes:
“We librarians would be fools if we didn't take advantage of the liberation the new media have given us from our ancient role, chained to the codex book and the hard labor of reading it and toting it around. Though books will always have an exalted place on our shelves, there's a great deal more we can offer, both in our stacks and on our library web sites. It is clear to me that among our most exalted professional missions is to make sure these new ways to receive entertainment and information are accessible and available to everyone. That can only lead to more widespread enlightenment, even for those who, like me, need sometimes to escape the printed page” (emphasis mine).
This is a bewildering passage for several reasons. Berry’s support of new media as a tool of liberation is remarkably uncritical, ignoring any sort of social or historical context (other than his own personal experience). Are other forms of media consumption inherently “easier” than reading? How does “easier” equate with “liberation” or “enlightenment”? Moreover, librarians are more than adequately incorporating “these new ways to receive entertainment and information,” which is largely contributing to the 21st century library models that…Berry decried earlier this year. Hmm.
Similar questions arise with regard to Berry’s treatment of reading. As best I can tell, “reading” in this column primarily stands for reading canonical works with which many people struggle. But reading books is, quite obviously, about much more than wrestling with Ulysses, as the broad review coverage of Library Journal amply demonstrates every issue. What should also be quite obvious to Berry is that there are countless ways to read books and respond to what we are reading, whether James Joyce or Danielle Steele wrote it. There are too many counterexamples to plausibly imagine books as something to which we are enslaved or “chained.”
And this leads to perhaps the most irritating aspect here, which is tone and word choice. Berry declares halfway through that “some folks will see this as a confession,” which is really an unavoidable conclusion. By casting books as oppressive and the act of reading as guilt-ridden, he clearly makes it sound as if his general rejection of both is a courageous act. It isn’t. That’s not to say that Berry’s struggles with reading aren’t legitimate, or that libraries shouldn’t extend their outreach to patrons who are there for reasons other than to check out books. Rather, adequately addressing such issues requires an appreciation for complexity and a lack of hyperbolic claims—both of which are sorely lacking in this column.
“In this new phase of my life, I have begun to view the progress of media and information technology as advancing my liberation from reading, or at least from much of the guilt and drudgery I associate with it.”
The word “liberation” in this sense is a bit peculiar, but isn’t really problematic yet. But Berry further contrasts reading with other (aural-visual) forms of media consumption that he prefers. Reading is “time-consuming,” while new media forms are easier and more efficient. Classic literature full of “lifeless typography,” such as Ulysses and Moby-Dick, was once a proverbial millstone around his neck, while “[b]oth sound and image giver the words more color, more life.” Not liking books once meant negative feelings (guilt, embarrassment, shame), while “I [now] don’t have to...feel guilty because I’ve put down the book to watch the movie.”
So how is Berry’s dislike of reading meaningful for the modern library? As he writes:
“We librarians would be fools if we didn't take advantage of the liberation the new media have given us from our ancient role, chained to the codex book and the hard labor of reading it and toting it around. Though books will always have an exalted place on our shelves, there's a great deal more we can offer, both in our stacks and on our library web sites. It is clear to me that among our most exalted professional missions is to make sure these new ways to receive entertainment and information are accessible and available to everyone. That can only lead to more widespread enlightenment, even for those who, like me, need sometimes to escape the printed page” (emphasis mine).
This is a bewildering passage for several reasons. Berry’s support of new media as a tool of liberation is remarkably uncritical, ignoring any sort of social or historical context (other than his own personal experience). Are other forms of media consumption inherently “easier” than reading? How does “easier” equate with “liberation” or “enlightenment”? Moreover, librarians are more than adequately incorporating “these new ways to receive entertainment and information,” which is largely contributing to the 21st century library models that…Berry decried earlier this year. Hmm.
Similar questions arise with regard to Berry’s treatment of reading. As best I can tell, “reading” in this column primarily stands for reading canonical works with which many people struggle. But reading books is, quite obviously, about much more than wrestling with Ulysses, as the broad review coverage of Library Journal amply demonstrates every issue. What should also be quite obvious to Berry is that there are countless ways to read books and respond to what we are reading, whether James Joyce or Danielle Steele wrote it. There are too many counterexamples to plausibly imagine books as something to which we are enslaved or “chained.”
And this leads to perhaps the most irritating aspect here, which is tone and word choice. Berry declares halfway through that “some folks will see this as a confession,” which is really an unavoidable conclusion. By casting books as oppressive and the act of reading as guilt-ridden, he clearly makes it sound as if his general rejection of both is a courageous act. It isn’t. That’s not to say that Berry’s struggles with reading aren’t legitimate, or that libraries shouldn’t extend their outreach to patrons who are there for reasons other than to check out books. Rather, adequately addressing such issues requires an appreciation for complexity and a lack of hyperbolic claims—both of which are sorely lacking in this column.
Friday, October 10, 2008
2008 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari
The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced today that former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari has won the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize. The committee cited Ahtisaari's "significant" part in establishing Namibia's independence and his "central" role in solving the question of the Indonesian province of Aceh in 2005. Ahtisaari twice worked to find a solution in Kosovo -- first in 1999 and again between 2005 and 2007. He also worked with others this year to find a peaceful solution to the problems in Iraq, the committee said. Ahtisaari is Chairman of Crisis Management Initiative, an independent, non-profit organization that promotes and works for sustainable security.
The prestigious prize includes a medal, a personal diploma, and 10 million Swedish crowns ($1.4 million) in prize money. The committee awards the peace prize annually according to guidelines laid down in the will of its founder, Alfred Nobel. The committee plans to award the prize to Ahtisaari on December 10th at Oslo City Hall in Norway.
The peace prize is one of five Nobel prizes awarded annually. The others -- for physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature -- were announced this week and will be awarded in Stockholm, Sweden later this year.
There should be more people in the world like former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari. I hope that he will inspire others by his efforts and accomplishments. Congratulations! Enjoy the $1.4 million.
source: CNN
The prestigious prize includes a medal, a personal diploma, and 10 million Swedish crowns ($1.4 million) in prize money. The committee awards the peace prize annually according to guidelines laid down in the will of its founder, Alfred Nobel. The committee plans to award the prize to Ahtisaari on December 10th at Oslo City Hall in Norway.
The peace prize is one of five Nobel prizes awarded annually. The others -- for physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature -- were announced this week and will be awarded in Stockholm, Sweden later this year.
There should be more people in the world like former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari. I hope that he will inspire others by his efforts and accomplishments. Congratulations! Enjoy the $1.4 million.
source: CNN
Thursday, October 2, 2008
The Bailout and Foreign Economies
While the current market issues and the associated proposed government bailout continue to be major concerns in the United States, other countries are also feeling the effects of this financial crisis. Many countries are feeling the impact of the crisis and pending bailout in their stock markets and banking industries.
Yesterday, the Senate voted 74-25 to approve a bailout, which included amendments that raise the amount of funds that will be federally insured from $100,000.00 to $250,000.00, extended tax breaks and will restrict “"golden parachute’ severance payments to disgraced Wall Street executives.” President Bush has asked the House of Representatives to approve the bailout by the end of the week so it can be enacted “to avoid further damage to the US economy”. It is uncertain whether this vote will be taken this week, and whether the House will approve this amended bailout after previously rejecting an earlier bailout proposal.
Even with just the Senate approval of this bailout, European stock markets were lifted and the value of the dollar was raised in Europe. Although there has been some improvement due to this Senate approval, the European Central Bank has renewed millions of dollars in one-day loans to ensure that distressed interstate banks would continue to have proper cash flow. The Asian stock market continues to fall due to this American financial crisis; banks have been required to expend several billion dollars in order to ensure the Asian stock markets continue to move.
On Saturday, economic leaders from Britain, France, Germany and Italy will convene "to discuss the crisis and a Dutch proposal for a European rescue fund for banks.” Some countries have taken measures into their own hands rather than wait for a response from the European Union. Two major Dutch banks have already received government bailouts and an emergency law was passed in Ireland to guarantee bank deposits (a move several European countries fear will mean a large number of transfers from other European countries to Irish banks).
It is natural that we think of resolving our economic issues without necessarily considering the impact felt by other countries. Still, it is obvious that our economic difficulties are having a large impact outside of our borders. Hopefully, the bailouts and measures taken by both the United States and foreign countries will be sufficient to turn around this crisis and ensure measures are in place should something similar happen in the future.
You can read the original article here.
Yesterday, the Senate voted 74-25 to approve a bailout, which included amendments that raise the amount of funds that will be federally insured from $100,000.00 to $250,000.00, extended tax breaks and will restrict “"golden parachute’ severance payments to disgraced Wall Street executives.” President Bush has asked the House of Representatives to approve the bailout by the end of the week so it can be enacted “to avoid further damage to the US economy”. It is uncertain whether this vote will be taken this week, and whether the House will approve this amended bailout after previously rejecting an earlier bailout proposal.
Even with just the Senate approval of this bailout, European stock markets were lifted and the value of the dollar was raised in Europe. Although there has been some improvement due to this Senate approval, the European Central Bank has renewed millions of dollars in one-day loans to ensure that distressed interstate banks would continue to have proper cash flow. The Asian stock market continues to fall due to this American financial crisis; banks have been required to expend several billion dollars in order to ensure the Asian stock markets continue to move.
On Saturday, economic leaders from Britain, France, Germany and Italy will convene "to discuss the crisis and a Dutch proposal for a European rescue fund for banks.” Some countries have taken measures into their own hands rather than wait for a response from the European Union. Two major Dutch banks have already received government bailouts and an emergency law was passed in Ireland to guarantee bank deposits (a move several European countries fear will mean a large number of transfers from other European countries to Irish banks).
It is natural that we think of resolving our economic issues without necessarily considering the impact felt by other countries. Still, it is obvious that our economic difficulties are having a large impact outside of our borders. Hopefully, the bailouts and measures taken by both the United States and foreign countries will be sufficient to turn around this crisis and ensure measures are in place should something similar happen in the future.
You can read the original article here.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Violating Federal Tax Law from the Pulpit
Earlier this morning, over thirty pastors planned to violate federal tax law by endorsing a presidential candidate while from the pulpit. As The Christian Science Monitor’s Jane Lampman reported last week, the pastors’ actions occurred on behalf of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), who proclaimed today as “Pulpit Freedom Sunday.” The ADF—a legal organization associated with the Religious Right—argues that pastors have the right to endorse political candidates within church as part of religious free speech. This stance goes against IRS tax codes, which prohibit churches from becoming involved in partisan political activity. Violations can result in churches losing their tax-exempt status.
So what might be the ultimate significance of what the involved pastors and ADF are doing? Writing for Church Law and Tax Report a few years ago, Richard R. Hammar noted that despite what the codes say, many “flagrant violations” occur during election years that the IRS fails to punish. Moreover, Jeff Sharlet elaborates on a related source of confusion:
“Outraged? You probably should be—we're talking about the money machine of the Christian Right—but I'm guessing you aren't, because I barely understand what I've just written myself. Most people don't know that churches aren't allowed to talk politics. So news of a bid to stop a bid to overturn the ban requires the journalistic equivalent of explaining why a joke is funny. It's hard to get outraged over defiance of a law you didn't know existed.”
So while the story has picked up some steam in the last several days, it’s still difficult to tell if what’s happened—and the oppositional stance from mainstream media and religious leaders—will ultimately amount to much in the long-term.
Two things are clear, though. The first is that despite what the pastors and ADF may claim, they do not have the Constitution on their side. Lampman mentions that in three separate cases since 1954, courts have ruled that the IRS prohibition “does not violate the Constitution’s free speech clause.” Mark Silk also contends that Pulpit Freedom Sunday does not pose a constitutional issue, since the free exercise clause “has never been interpreted to include a right not to be taxed. The remedy for the grievance here is simply for ADF to try to get the law changed.”
Secondly, ADF intends for the title “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” to signify a courageous spiritual stance against government (read: secular, evil) forces of oppression. Yet as a Duluth pastor commented, the event is, in reality, “kind of foolish.”
So what might be the ultimate significance of what the involved pastors and ADF are doing? Writing for Church Law and Tax Report a few years ago, Richard R. Hammar noted that despite what the codes say, many “flagrant violations” occur during election years that the IRS fails to punish. Moreover, Jeff Sharlet elaborates on a related source of confusion:
“Outraged? You probably should be—we're talking about the money machine of the Christian Right—but I'm guessing you aren't, because I barely understand what I've just written myself. Most people don't know that churches aren't allowed to talk politics. So news of a bid to stop a bid to overturn the ban requires the journalistic equivalent of explaining why a joke is funny. It's hard to get outraged over defiance of a law you didn't know existed.”
So while the story has picked up some steam in the last several days, it’s still difficult to tell if what’s happened—and the oppositional stance from mainstream media and religious leaders—will ultimately amount to much in the long-term.
Two things are clear, though. The first is that despite what the pastors and ADF may claim, they do not have the Constitution on their side. Lampman mentions that in three separate cases since 1954, courts have ruled that the IRS prohibition “does not violate the Constitution’s free speech clause.” Mark Silk also contends that Pulpit Freedom Sunday does not pose a constitutional issue, since the free exercise clause “has never been interpreted to include a right not to be taxed. The remedy for the grievance here is simply for ADF to try to get the law changed.”
Secondly, ADF intends for the title “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” to signify a courageous spiritual stance against government (read: secular, evil) forces of oppression. Yet as a Duluth pastor commented, the event is, in reality, “kind of foolish.”
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Redesigned Global Legal Monitor Launched
From The Law Library of Congress:
The Global Legal Monitor has transformed from a monthly published PDF to a dynamic continuously updated website. The new Global Legal Monitor has the ability to view legal developments by topic (more than 100 so far) and by jurisdiction (over 150). The content of the Global Legal Monitor can also be searched through its advanced search interface.
Each legal development has its own permanent link for easy access, sharing, and bookmarking. To keep up-to-date on new legal developments in the Global Legal Monitor subscribe to its RSS feed.
The Global Legal Monitor is an online publication from the Law Library of Congress covering legal news and developments worldwide. It draws on information from the Global Legal Information Network, official national legal publications, and reliable press sources.
The Global Legal Monitor has transformed from a monthly published PDF to a dynamic continuously updated website. The new Global Legal Monitor has the ability to view legal developments by topic (more than 100 so far) and by jurisdiction (over 150). The content of the Global Legal Monitor can also be searched through its advanced search interface.
Each legal development has its own permanent link for easy access, sharing, and bookmarking. To keep up-to-date on new legal developments in the Global Legal Monitor subscribe to its RSS feed.
The Global Legal Monitor is an online publication from the Law Library of Congress covering legal news and developments worldwide. It draws on information from the Global Legal Information Network, official national legal publications, and reliable press sources.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
West Memphis Three Seeking New Trial
One of the members of the famed West Memphis Three, Jason Baldwin was in court yesterday seeking a new hearing. Baldwin, along with Jessie Misskelley and Damien Echols, was convicted of murdering three young boys in 1993; since that time, new evidence has come to light which these convicted individuals hope to exonerate them of these crimes. Additionally, Baldwin claims he had ineffective counsel during the first trial. Earlier this month, all three members were denied new trials as the judge ruled the new DNA evidence failed to prove they were not at the scene of the crime; as such, Baldwin’s request for a new trial at this time focuses solely on his lack of effective counsel.
In 1993, three young boys were found bound and murdered in what police thought was an occult ritualistic murder. Baldwin, Misskelley and Echols were then arrested and put on trial, with the trial focusing on satanic rituals and heavy metal music. At the time, no forensic evidence could be found tying any of these individuals to the murder, but more recently DNA evidence was extracted from the knife used which match two unrelated individuals.
Due to the nature of the crime, some suggest that there was an attempt to appease the community as quickly as possible. Since the trial, allegations have come about regarding the confession of Misskelley, a “borderline retarded” individual. The reliability of his testimony has been challenged by many, even his own father.
In reexamining evidence, forensic specialists have also concluded that this was not any type of occult ritualistic murder. These specialists found no evidence of sexual abuse, and determined that the mutilation to the boys was caused by animals. Both the alleged sexual abuse and mutilation were the key facts giving rise to the idea of a satanic ritual.
Whether one supports the West Memphis Three or believes they are guilty, it seems very apparent that the judicial system did not work properly in this instance. While proper forensic tools may not have been available in 1993 to examine DNA, the fact that there was no physical evidence tying the accused to the murders and the reliance on a unreliable witness as the primary support for conviction would seem to give cause for a new trial.
It is understandable that the thought of ritualistic occult killings would give rise to fear in a community. Anybody hearing about such killings in their neighborhood would most likely react in fear the same way the residents of West Memphis did. However, a community’s fears do not override the right of Due Process that these individuals seem to have been denied. Whether they are innocent or guilty nobody will really know until all the evidence is properly presented.
For more on the West Memphis Three, many of the court documents and other updates can be found here. (Note: this site is pro-West Memphis Three and their opinions do not necessarily reflect my view; however, the site does provide much case information directly from the Courts, the police and other media outlets.)
Also, information on the case and additional evidence found since their conviction can be found here.
In 1993, three young boys were found bound and murdered in what police thought was an occult ritualistic murder. Baldwin, Misskelley and Echols were then arrested and put on trial, with the trial focusing on satanic rituals and heavy metal music. At the time, no forensic evidence could be found tying any of these individuals to the murder, but more recently DNA evidence was extracted from the knife used which match two unrelated individuals.
Due to the nature of the crime, some suggest that there was an attempt to appease the community as quickly as possible. Since the trial, allegations have come about regarding the confession of Misskelley, a “borderline retarded” individual. The reliability of his testimony has been challenged by many, even his own father.
In reexamining evidence, forensic specialists have also concluded that this was not any type of occult ritualistic murder. These specialists found no evidence of sexual abuse, and determined that the mutilation to the boys was caused by animals. Both the alleged sexual abuse and mutilation were the key facts giving rise to the idea of a satanic ritual.
Whether one supports the West Memphis Three or believes they are guilty, it seems very apparent that the judicial system did not work properly in this instance. While proper forensic tools may not have been available in 1993 to examine DNA, the fact that there was no physical evidence tying the accused to the murders and the reliance on a unreliable witness as the primary support for conviction would seem to give cause for a new trial.
It is understandable that the thought of ritualistic occult killings would give rise to fear in a community. Anybody hearing about such killings in their neighborhood would most likely react in fear the same way the residents of West Memphis did. However, a community’s fears do not override the right of Due Process that these individuals seem to have been denied. Whether they are innocent or guilty nobody will really know until all the evidence is properly presented.
For more on the West Memphis Three, many of the court documents and other updates can be found here. (Note: this site is pro-West Memphis Three and their opinions do not necessarily reflect my view; however, the site does provide much case information directly from the Courts, the police and other media outlets.)
Also, information on the case and additional evidence found since their conviction can be found here.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Afghanistan Opens First Full-Service Law Library
As a Kent State University graduate myself, I was thrilled to hear about the wonderful work that a fellow MLIS graduate was doing in Afghanistan. Andrea Muto just established a new law library on the campus of Kabul University in Afghanistan. Her endeavor in establishing a library in Afghanistan is unprecedented. The country has suffered for 30 years from war and establishment of a law library was difficult.
Andrea had been working for a USAID-funded project in Kabul for about a year and a half. Among other projects, she created a new law library basically from the ground-up (space was provided) and hired a new law library staff (in a country where no tradition of librarianship exists). To read the full article, click here.
Take note of the searchable full-text database of laws Andrea worked with her staff. This database includes all laws from Afghanistan's Official Gazette from 1964 to present - and is the first of its kind in Afghanistan!
Andrea had been working for a USAID-funded project in Kabul for about a year and a half. Among other projects, she created a new law library basically from the ground-up (space was provided) and hired a new law library staff (in a country where no tradition of librarianship exists). To read the full article, click here.
Take note of the searchable full-text database of laws Andrea worked with her staff. This database includes all laws from Afghanistan's Official Gazette from 1964 to present - and is the first of its kind in Afghanistan!
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Elections Problems Expected (Already)
It’s September 18, 2008, and people are already, and once again, concerned with polling place procedures and issues that are expected for the November 4 election. According to a Washington Post article this morning, the large increase in voter registration requests, new procedures and new technology leads one only to expect further problems with our nation’s Presidential election.
The goal of these new procedures and new equipment was to avoid problems as experienced in 2000 (Florida) and 2004 (Ohio). However, as the article explains, and many people have already experienced, such measures have done little except to discourage voters and cause new problems. In many places, such as Ohio, there has been much discussion of the touch-screen systems that had been put in place and the additional problems they have caused. Such states are now turning to paper ballots, to be read by an optical scan machine; even with the addition of this “paper trail” though, there are concerns about adequate reading of the ballots and the procedure for how and where these ballots are to be read.
Also, this upcoming election will be the first Presidential election where federally mandated state databases for matching voters to their information will be implemented. Any small error in this database and the voter may be wrongfully denied their vote. With the matching requirements being so strict, in addition to the higher expected turnout, it is very likely that there will be several such issues.
Some local primaries have already evidenced the problems that can be expected in November. In some cases, the vote count was artificially inflated while in others some votes went missing. Results have been delayed due to technical issues, and the manufacturer of many of the voting machines in use has admitted to issues with the machines and the opportunity for lost votes.
Many of these issues have been discussed here and elsewhere many times before. However, with this being the first Presidential election since many of these procedures and new equipment have been mandated, this may very well be the true test, and perhaps downfall, of these measures. Jurisdictions are already receiving a huge influx of voter registration requests, and it is likely that the turnout for the Presidential election will be higher than that for local elections. With the larger amount of people present, the expected problems will only be exacerbated.
One apparent saving grace, assuming people are aware of it, is the ability in many states, including Ohio, to vote absentee without requiring any reason. In fact, Montgomery County has been sending absentee voter applications to houses in order to make voters aware of this option. However, to vote absentee, one must have faith that their ballot will be received and must still maintain the faith that the voting equipment will actually read their ballot correctly.
It is hoped that the election goes off without any problems, however that seems very unlikely. If the expected problems occur to the extent expected, it will be interesting to see what the states and federal government attempt next to solve these issues. If we keep changing the procedures and equipment though, it seems unlikely that anything will ever finally “stick” and we will be reading articles such as this for a long time to come.
The goal of these new procedures and new equipment was to avoid problems as experienced in 2000 (Florida) and 2004 (Ohio). However, as the article explains, and many people have already experienced, such measures have done little except to discourage voters and cause new problems. In many places, such as Ohio, there has been much discussion of the touch-screen systems that had been put in place and the additional problems they have caused. Such states are now turning to paper ballots, to be read by an optical scan machine; even with the addition of this “paper trail” though, there are concerns about adequate reading of the ballots and the procedure for how and where these ballots are to be read.
Also, this upcoming election will be the first Presidential election where federally mandated state databases for matching voters to their information will be implemented. Any small error in this database and the voter may be wrongfully denied their vote. With the matching requirements being so strict, in addition to the higher expected turnout, it is very likely that there will be several such issues.
Some local primaries have already evidenced the problems that can be expected in November. In some cases, the vote count was artificially inflated while in others some votes went missing. Results have been delayed due to technical issues, and the manufacturer of many of the voting machines in use has admitted to issues with the machines and the opportunity for lost votes.
Many of these issues have been discussed here and elsewhere many times before. However, with this being the first Presidential election since many of these procedures and new equipment have been mandated, this may very well be the true test, and perhaps downfall, of these measures. Jurisdictions are already receiving a huge influx of voter registration requests, and it is likely that the turnout for the Presidential election will be higher than that for local elections. With the larger amount of people present, the expected problems will only be exacerbated.
One apparent saving grace, assuming people are aware of it, is the ability in many states, including Ohio, to vote absentee without requiring any reason. In fact, Montgomery County has been sending absentee voter applications to houses in order to make voters aware of this option. However, to vote absentee, one must have faith that their ballot will be received and must still maintain the faith that the voting equipment will actually read their ballot correctly.
It is hoped that the election goes off without any problems, however that seems very unlikely. If the expected problems occur to the extent expected, it will be interesting to see what the states and federal government attempt next to solve these issues. If we keep changing the procedures and equipment though, it seems unlikely that anything will ever finally “stick” and we will be reading articles such as this for a long time to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
