Court Rules on Religious Displays in Public Parks

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a public park in Utah need not provide space for a religious monument reflecting the Summum religion. The case, Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, was brought due to the fact that members of the Summum religion wished to display a monument reflecting their religious beliefs; said monument would be in direct contrast to the park’s current monument displaying the Ten Commandments.

This case was brought under a First Amendment claim. However, unlike most cases dealing with religion, this case was brought under the freedom of speech clause rather than the freedom of religion clause. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, stated that the religious monuments in cases such as this are “best viewed as a form of government speech.” Justice Alito concluded that the Summum church’s First Amendment right to the freedom of speech was not violated, as the government has the right to choose what it wishes to say, and similarly what it wishes not to say.

Although this was a unanimous opinion, six of the Justices wrote concurrences which offered alternate viewpoints than that written by Justice Alito. One of the issues which concerned the other Justices is the apparent creation of government language which is not subject to First Amendment review. The Justices also differed in their opinions as to whether the Summum church could bring another challenge under the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment.

Like many of the concurring judges, this decision is also bothersome to me as it does expand a government’s ability to seemingly bypass any First Amendment review. By merely calling a display a form of “government speech”, it would seem that a city would obtain support from this decision to prevent any monuments or displays that contradict the religious message of those in charge of the local government.

Also of issue is the seemingly blurred line of church and state. While the Supreme Court decision seems to argue that a monument to the Ten Commandments can be seen outside of a religious perspective, it is hard to be persuaded that these tablets, a very religious icon, can be seen any other way. To say then that a city can choose what qualifies as “government speech”, and such “government speech” seems to be tied to these religious displays, would seem to cross the line of the separation of these two institutions.

For the full article from the New York Times, click here.

The President's Mortgage Modification Plan

Yesterday, President Barack Obama revealed what would amount to be “the largest federal foreclosure-prevention package in decades”. The plan would allocate more than $75 billion in aims of assisting U.S. home buyers in obtaining “more affordable mortgage terms.” The President’s plan would allow homeowners with little equity in their houses to refinance their mortgages, allocate funds to keeping a large number of homeowners out of foreclosure, and increase government funding of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The President assures that this program "will not rescue the unscrupulous or irresponsible by throwing good taxpayer money after bad loans." It will allow homeowners to refinance “at a time of historically low mortgage rates” “as long as their mortgage does not exceed 105 percent of the current value of their property.” The program would also create financial incentives for lending institutions to lower required payments, attempting to make the mortgage aspect more financially attractive than foreclosure.

As expected, many have come out with criticism of this plan. Many bring up the issue of how second mortgages will be affected and handled through this program. Also, many feel that for most lending institutions, any participation in this program would be purely voluntary. Although Bankruptcy Court judges will be permitted to lower the principal of the mortgage to that of the current market value of the property, the lending institutions will not be required do modify mortgages in this way. Other issues of concern include mortgages being sold into securitized pools and the focus on owner-occupied housing with little to no mention of investor owned property.

It is hoped that offering financial incentives to lending institutions would be sufficient to have them voluntarily work with borrowers, but anytime something is voluntary there is a chance that somebody will not participate. At the same time, the President cannot force banks to comply as that is beyond the scope of his power. I would suspect that allowing Bankruptcy Court judges to modify the principal of the mortgage loan would bring up similar issues of the court exceeding its power. With these issues, and the unresolved issues mentioned above, it is hoped that the criticism levied against this plan will be used constructively to shape a plan that will assist distressed homeowners as planned.


For the full article from the Washington Post, click here.

An Alternate Take on Evolution in the Classroom

Paul's post from Thursday on Darwin's birthday and classroom approaches to evolution raises a lot of hot-button topics: public opinion on evolution; continuing battles over scientific curricula in public schools (and the freedom of speech/religion implications that are involved); and the relationship between faith and reason. None of these topics are areas of strength for me, but I want to generally discuss my thoughts and where I differ from Paul.

When we think of the phrase "culture wars," the two political issues most likely to come to mind are abortion and gay marriage. There's a good reason for that, considering the energy, finances, and polarization surrounding both issues; Proposition 8 in California continues to provide a strong example. Yet we often overlook public opinion on evolution as a significant part of the culture wars, which is a huge mistake. Paul cites recent Gallup and Pew Research Center polls where more than 40% of Americans favor creationism, which Gallup defines as agreement with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in the present form." The Pew Research Center indicates that these numbers (according to Gallup) have remained consistent for over the last quarter-century.

Historian Paul Harvey notes that "America has a very peculiar history with the idea of evolution," and public doubt about the validity of evolution is nothing new. But such strong poll numbers in favor of creationism--which also holds that the earth is no more that 10,000 years old or so--remains remarkable. In his book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, historian Mark Noll identifies that evangelicals have been responsible for the rise of creationism since 1960, and that their efforts resulted in "one of the great innovations of recent evangelical history." Noll argues that after the 1961 publication of the seminal creationist text The Genesis Flood, evangelicals capitalized on several factors--including, most notably, the belief in a "simple" or "literal" reading of Scripture--to create a groundswell of support for the doctrine. Historian Ronald Numbers elaborates that by the late 1970s, creationist political advocates adopted the strategy of arguing for a "two-model" approach in public classrooms, one that would provide a "balanced approach" towards both evolution and creationism.

Though the Supreme Court banned such "equal time" efforts in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), creationists turned to the burgeoning intelligence design (ID) movement to advance their causes. Though prominent ID supporters such as Michael Behe have attempted to distinguish their work from creationism, evidence demonstrates that the two doctrines are intertwined. One example emerged in the hearings during Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), which centered on the school board of Dover, Pennsylvania's attempts to mandate the teaching of intelligence design in its ninth-grade biology curriculum. The textbook that the school board chose for its biology classrooms, Of Pandas and People, was the first pro-ID pedagogical text of its kind. Yet the Of Pandas authors (Dean H. Kenyon and Percival Davis) "had originally conceived their book as a scientific brief for creationism," according to Numbers. Moreover, the plantiffs in Kitzmiller discovered that after the Supreme Court ruling in Edwards, Percival and Davis replaced the term "creationists" with "design proponents" throughout the book. An error in one of the newer drafts--"cdesign proponentsists"--became a key piece of evidence that helped lead to the ruling against Dover's school board.

Nevertheless, Numbers writes that the ID movement's " 'wedge' strategy"--as they exhibited in Kitzmiller--has "succeeded beyond all but their own expectations in convincing the public and press that a serious scientific controversy existed about the status of Darwinism." And journalist Laurie Lebo documents that it is this strategy that lies at the heart of Louisiana's recent "academic freedom" bill. The bill (and its use of the term "strengths and weaknesses") implies a "controversy" where there is none, scientifically speaking, and is intended to deceptively disguise the promotion of a religiously motivated and unscientific doctrine as a freedom of speech issue. This is where I would disagree with Paul. It's reasonable to expect classroom debates to exist along the lines of what Amy Harmon profiles for the New York Times from last August, where students grapple with understanding and accepting evolution. But when we legally claim that teachers are exercising academic freedom by officially debating evolution's "strengths and weaknesses" as part of a science curriculum, we are opening the door to violating church/state separation, bearing in mind that the current "alternatives" to evolution are explicitly religious in origin.

Besides its legal implications, I'll admit that this issue is a personal one for religious reasons. As a teenage member of a conservative Methodist church, I remember watching a video during our youth meeting on evolution. The video dramatized a scenario where, upon hearing her science teacher present the case for human evolution, a girl runs out of the classroom, protesting that she didn't believe in such a thing. The message was clear: Christian belief and evolution were antithetical to each other. Not caring enough to seriously challenge this view, I became a supporter of creationism, and wondered at points if humans and dinosaurs co-existed together. It took many years--and a shifting of viewpoints on several other topics--before I really accepted that theism and evolution, faith and reason, could co-exist together.

My story is hardly unique, of course; determining the relationship between faith and reason when it comes to evolution is a common difficulty for religious believers, and especially so for those from theologically conservative backgrounds. Creationism and ID, however, oversimplify this process to an "either/or" decision, where one must choose to be either on God's side or the side of secularism. Without going into a lengthy theological argument, this demonstrates bad faith as well as being unscientific. Noll is particularly unsparing on this point, bluntly stating that creationism has obscured clear thinking about "human origins, the age of the earth, and mechanisms of geological or biological change." As he elaborates, "... if the consensus of modern scientists, who devote their lives to looking at the data of the physical world, is that humans have existed on the planet for a very long time, it is foolish for biblical interpreters to say that 'the Bible teaches' the recent creation of human beings."

Across the nation, young high school students are sitting in introductory biology classes, encountering evolution for what may be--or is likely--the first time. From a legal standpoint, these students have the right to hear scientific truth from their teachers, to learn in an environment that is absent of religious motivations. From a religious standpoint, they deserve better outside-of-class help in determining how evolution will fit into their faith backgrounds than from reductionist and dishonest doctrines.

Celebrating Darwin

Today marks the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, famous for this theory of evolution. In celebration of Darwin’s birthday, people throughout the globe are celebrating Darwin Day, “a global celebration of science and reason”.

However, as most are aware, not all agree with Darwin’s theories and the teaching of evolution has continued to be a hotly debated issue in schools throughout the United States. According to a recent poll, 40% of Americans discredit evolution and instead cling to a belief in creationism. Scientists claim that there is no merit to these claims, and instead choose to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, which they claim has the scientific backing creationism lacks. As such, issues often arise as to which a teacher is permitted to present in their classroom.

In 2005, US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that intelligent design (creationism re-designated as to avoid religious connotations) is not science and therefore cannot be taught in public schools. However, last year, Louisiana passed what they term an “academic freedom” law. This law protects the teachers’ freedom of speech by allowing them to “discuss the ‘scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses’ of issues such as evolution.” Recently, bills have been introduced in Oklahoma, Alabama, Iowa, and New Mexico; similar bills have already failed in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, and South Carolina.

As a pure freedom of speech issue, I wholeheartedly agree with states attempting to protect such rights by allowing for classroom debates of evolution and creationism/intelligent design. Unfortunately, this topic also broaches the topic of the separation of church and state and directly affects how children are being taught and molded. In private schools, it is expected that students will be exposed to the topic of religion. However, as the Pennsylvania Court ruled, religion cannot be taught in public schools, and intelligent design certainly seems to approach religious teaching.

By Louisiana wording their law allowing teachers to “discuss the ‘scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses’ of issues such as evolution”, the state seems to create an ideal solution as long as the subject of God or religion does not come into play. All scientific principles are open for debate in scientific terms, and evolution is certainly not immune from this debate. Such open communication in classrooms would allow for different viewpoints to be expressed and allow for the furthering of a scientific education. In such debates, people could truly celebrate science and reason, which is exactly what Darwin Day is suppose to further. Unfortunately, other states at this point have not agreed with this viewpoint.

For the complete article, click here.

Considering The Long Civil Rights Movement and "Praying Away the Gay"

There is quite a bit to ponder from Joseph Crespino's excellent study In Search of Another Country: Mississippi and the Conservative Counterrevolution, which I recently finished reading. Crespino, an associate professor of history at Emory University, argues that Mississippi did not simply provide "massive resistance" against the civil rights movement, as we often believe. Instead, as he writes:

"...despite segregationist' popular pledges that they would never submit to racial integration, white leaders in the state initiated a subtle and strategic accomodation to the demands of civil rights activists and the federal government, one that helped preserve the priorities of white elits and that put Mississippians in a position to contribute to a broad conservative countermovement against the liberal triumphs of the 1960s" (4).

Crespino notes in his conclusion that there are several implications to this argument. One of the implications that stood out to me was how we should think about the time span of the civil rights movement. Just as it's easy for us to imagine Mississippi as being what he calls a "closed society" (one that was more racist that anywhere else in the U.S.), it's also easy to imagine that the struggle for civil rights ended in the 1960s, when segregationists in the South lost their fight against the Civil Rights Act and Brown v. Board of Education. Yet Crespino makes a case for " 'the long civil rights movement,' " a term he quotes from fellow historian Jacquelyn Dowd Hall. In documenting Mississippi's racially charged "battles over access to schools, jobs, and political power" during the 1970s and 1980s, he argues that those battles "flowed directly out of civil rights battles of earlier decades" (276).

Crespino provides a good example of the long civil rights movement in his November 2007 article about President Ronald Reagan's infamous campaign visit to the Neshoba County fair in Philadelphia, Mississippi. The article responds to an argument between New York Times columnists David Brooks and Paul Krugman over the racial meaning of "states' rights," a term that Reagan used in the speech he gave at the fair. While Crespino criticizes Krugman for generally oversimplifying the role of racism in conservative politics, he also finds that Brooks' defense of Reagan is unwarranted. As he finds, "Reagan was content to let southern Republicans link him to segregationist politics in the South’s recent past." The reference to "states' rights" was a clear signal of support to Mississippi conservatives who had resented federal efforts to bring about school desegregation and biracial poverty programs in their state. To this constituency, the battle over political control of their state--and the civil rights that consequently remained at stake--was quite alive and well.

Admittedly, this is a very watered-down take on a complex argument, but Crespino's book and the above article are well worth reading.

--In her review of the Lifetime television movie Prayers for Bobby, Tanya Erzen (an assistant professor of comparative studies at Ohio State University) finds fault with the movie's good intentions:

"The film hews to the conventions of Lifetime, in which tragedy inevitably leads to personal growth. There are archetypal characters: the jock brother who makes gay jokes, the sinister psychiatrist, the judgmental minister from the Griffith’s church, and the sympathetic gay man with whom Bobby shares a drink at a dance club. It is a film designed to teach us a lesson about religious intolerance, but in doing so it reproduces the unspoken rules for rendering gay people sympathetic or likeable to a television audience: they were “born that way,” they never have sex, and, of course, they die tragically."

Erzen also writes that the "film’s response to the ex-gay argument that gay people can and should change is that sexuality is biological or genetic—a politics that grants full citizenship regardless of whether sexuality is immutable is illegible for the television genre." It's not all bad, as Erzen identifies the transformation of Bobby's mother, Mary (played by Sigourney Weaver), as "the most meaningful form of redemption in the film." But her critique is a timely one, and should force us to consider how seemingly positive representations of gay people can actually be stereotypical and deterministic. Erzen has written a book on the "ex-gay movement" within certain stains of conservative Christianity, and her 2006 interview with Terry Gross on National Public Radio's Fresh Air is a good introduction to her work.

Ethics and Octuplets

As reported in various news outlets this week, Nadya Suleman gave birth to octuplets – only the second reported case of live octuplets being born in the United States. At present, Suleman, a single woman, has not yet revealed whether the births are a result of artificial insemination or any details concerning the conception of the children. However, the possibility that a fertility doctor implanted Suleman with eight embryos is causing concerns within the profession.

Whether artificial insemination is performed in vitro or intrauterine, doctors typically only work with two to four embryos. American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) guidelines call for no more than two embryos for women in their thirties seeking in vitro fertilization. A spokesperson for ASRM, Eleanor Nicoll, stated regarding Suleman, “"It should not have happened. Eight children should not have been conceived and born."

The reasoning behind the ASRM guidelines centers on the health of the embryos and mother. Multi-birth pregnancies create a higher risk for premature labor and delivery. The developing embryos have a higher risk for brain injuries, underdeveloped lungs and intestines, and cerebral palsy.

The apparent violation of these guidelines gives rise not only to medical concerns for the children and mother, but also to ethical questions. Lawrence Werlin, medical director of the Coastal Fertility Center in Irvine, indicates that prior to artificial insemination, questions are asked of the woman regarding how long she has attempted to get pregnant and the existence of other children. Given that Suleman already had six children, Werlin states, “I can't believe that she came in and said to the doctor that 'I want eight more children.' I can't believe that. And if she did, I would say, 'I'm sorry, I'm not the person for you.'" However, it appears that somebody may have done just that, whether Ms. Suleman asked for only one more child or did in fact ask for eight.

David C. Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, states that current guidelines are not as strict as in some other countries, and use the word “should” in many places. Magnus states that the only true remedy for those affected for violations of these guidelines is tort law. As of yet, medical organizations have failed to tighten up guidelines and/or create additional remedies.

No matter what one thinks about Ms. Suleman, this event has definitely resulted in many people thinking about multi-birth pregnancies. No matter whether these people agree or disagree with the propriety of artificial insemination giving rise to such pregnancies, this Washington Post article raises issues that require resolution. As David C. Magnus states, the current state of in vitro fertilization is basically an unregulated marketplace; if this marketplace remains unregulated, "there will be abuses." Until Ms. Suleman tells her full story, many will assume that such an abuse may have already taken place.

Same-Sex Rights in Washington State

Add Washington to the list of states working to expand the rights of same-sex couples. On Wednesday, the state announced plans to give the same rights given to heterosexual married couples to same-sex domestic partners.

The proposed Bill would amend the current state law to include same-sex domestic partners in sections where currently only married couples are addressed. All state statutes dealing with married couples would be amended; such sections range from “labor and employment to pensions and other public employee benefits.” Previously, lawmakers had been successful in adding protections for same-sex domestic couples to areas of law including probate, trust, community property, guardianships and power of attorney.

As expected, those opposing this latest measure claim that this Bill will only further the move towards same-sex marriage. These opponents claim that sanctioning same-sex marriage will dilute traditional marriages. A separate measure to legalize same-sex marriage in the state has in fact been introduced, “but is unlikely to go anywhere this year.”

When it comes to this type of legislation, one thing always seems to strike me: the opponents’ claim that same-sex marriage will dilute their own heterosexual marriage. Even mentioning same-sex marriage or providing similar protections to same-sex domestic partners, as Washington is attempting to do, brings out those who claim that any such expansion of rights makes traditional marriage less “pure”. The granting of such rights should not affect the quality of another’s relationship; whether it’s an interracial marriage, a marriage of two people with a wide age gap (granted there is no other illegality such as undue influence) or a same-sex marriage, the overall quality will remain the same.

Additionally, the main crux of this Washington Bill is to provide similar rights to same-sex domestic couples. While it may lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage, it will not necessarily do so. This will merely entitle same-sex domestic partners to enjoy employment benefits that heterosexual couples already receive. It will allow same-sex couples to exercise these rights with the force of the law supporting them, instead of having to fight to receive these benefits. If a state is to recognize a same-sex domestic partnership or marriage, it is only right that they are provided applicable rights under the state law.

For the complete article, click here.

President Obama and Guantanamo

In one of his first official act as President, Barack Obama is expected to sign an executive order today that will close the detention camp at Guantanamo as well a number of C.I.A. “secret” prisons. Along with closing these prisons, the executive order would set in place new procedures for the handling of suspected terrorists.

The over two-hundred terrorism suspects currently being held at Guantanamo would be reviewed immediately to determine their status and whether to release, transfer or prosecute them. The executive order will also reduce the amount of time terrorism suspects are held in custody; currently, many of these suspects are secretly being held for months and sometimes years. Finally, the order would require the C.I.A. to follow interrogation rules similar to those used by the military, disallowing any coercive interrogation techniques.

While this order is being lauded by some as a solution to current human rights violations, there are some unresolved issues in President Obama’s plan. With the closing of Guantanamo, the immediate review required will be a challenge; questions still remain as to how many prisoners will be transferred and/or prosecuted, as well as where they will be transferred to. The executive order also leaves room for President Obama, or another future President, to reopen the C.I.A. prisons that are being closed by this order, “as some have argued would be appropriate if Osama bin Laden or another top-level leader of Al Qaeda were captured.” Also, there appear to be worries within the C.I.A. that the restriction of interrogation techniques will prevent them from acquiring vital information from those high up in suspected terrorist groups.

From a human rights standpoint, it is easy to support President Obama’s plan. With the reports of torture and coercive interrogation techniques from the past year, the President is making a strong move to avoid further transgressions. Many of the suspects affected are not even necessarily officially within the government’s custody; many of these suspects have been held for longer than what many would consider a reasonable time. With the signing of this order, such prolonged and secret custody will be eliminated.

While the human rights standpoint is strong and convincing, there is still the practical matter of how to effectively and efficiently review the currently held suspects, and how and where to handle those that are determined to be transferred and/or prosecuted. As for the C.I.A.’s claim that the restriction on the interrogation techniques they can use limits their effectiveness, that is a claim that perhaps cannot be substantiated until the new standards are in effect. Once these practical issues are resolved, it appears that President Obama’s plan will prevent the continuance of such wrongdoing related to terrorism suspects.

For the full article from the New York Times, click here.

The Uneasy State of Book Publishing

A brief food-for-thought entry: As I mentioned last week, e-books were a definitive highlight for book publishers over the past twelve months. E-book sales in the U.S. have shot upward; the Amazon Kindle has become a hit consumer item, even with limited availability; interest in the Sony Reader remains high; and one publisher's recent comments reveal the potential for e-books on the iPhone. Dana Goodyear's essay on Japanese "cell-phone novels" also indicates how digital technology can influence what--and who--is professionally published.

The unfortunate flip side is that the traditional, bread-and-butter wing of of book publishing--hardcover and paperback books--is in serious trouble. (Goodyear notes that Japanese publishers have "embraced cell-phone novels" in part because the industry has "shrunk by more than twenty percent in the last eleven years.") Jason Boog summarizes just how bleak the near future will be for the industry. In mentioning Boog's essay, Anika at WriteBlack is blunt in her assessment: "Somebody’s got to reinvent publishing, and it has to happen faster than it’s happening now."

So what's the future path? Anika elaborates in a comment to the above post:

"I think part of the problem for the book publishing industry is the same problem as in newspapers: It’s obvious that the way of the future is digital, but even as dead-tree profits are falling, dead trees still make way more money than digital editions. If companies drop paper versions right now, they’ll have to fire 90 percent of their staffs and get rid of 90 percent of their editors, because the new business model right now just won’t sustain the overhead that actually keeps the industry running."

In other words, there are no easy answers.

Obama sworn in with Lincoln's Bible

Interesting tidbit of the day:

President-elect Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th president of the United States on January 20, 2009. He will be taking the oath of office with his hand on the same bible Abraham Lincoln used at his 1861 inauguration.

Why is this interesting? Well, use of this particular Bible by the first black man to be elected president is considered significant because it was used by the president credited with ending slavery in this country more than a century ago.

New Supreme Court Ruling to Affect Exclusionary Rule

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling allowing for the admissibility of evidence, even if said evidence was improperly seized. Under this ruling, the Court found that as long as the improper seizure was the “result of isolated negligence”, the arrest is not necessarily invalidated.

The ruling stems from a case of a man from Alabama who was arrested due to an improper notification that an arrest warrant had been issued. Upon acting upon this non-existent warrant, police discovered guns and drugs in possession of the individual, which led to his challenged conviction.

Justice Roberts, writing for the majority which also included Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito, stated that, “We conclude that when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements," the evidence may still be admissible in court. Justice Roberts concluded that this was more of a “bookkeeping” error, and not a deliberate attempt to violate an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Writing for the dissent, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer, stated that, “The most 'serious impact' of the court's holding will be on innocent persons 'wrongfully arrested based on erroneous information [carelessly maintained] in a computer data base'". Instead of having motivation to ensure records are maintained correctly, the dissent argues that this ruling allows too great a leeway to encourage any need to correct any defects or problems.

The Court seems to leave the decision of the severity of the error, “bookkeeping” v. disregard of Fourth Amendment rights, up to the trial court. By allowing the trial court to determine the severity of the error, the trial court seems to have final discretion as to what can and cannot be admitted in these cases. With such discretion, it is uncertain how far this exception will go.

As an illustration of the uncertainty this ruling may cause, also reported today is the recent announcement that 945 cases in Los Angeles are being reviewed due to improper fingerprint analysis. So far, only two wrongful arrests have been found, but there is still much work to be performed. Still, the question becomes, in relation to this recent Supreme Court decision – would this fall under a “bookkeeping” error and any incriminating evidence found due to this improper fingerprinting be admissible in court? If fingerprints at a scene of a crime lead to an arrest, albeit an arrest of a different individual for an unassociated crime due to the mislabeling or misreading of fingerprints, have the rights of this unassociated individual been violated? Prior to this ruling, the answer would most certainly seem to be “yes”; however, with this ruling the answer is not so certain.

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable, unwarranted searches and seizures. Any evidence gained in violation of this right is excluded from being used at trial. To now say that a court has the discretion to admit evidence gained in violation of this right, due to a “bookkeeping” error, seems to be nothing more than an improper circumvention of an individual’s Constitutional rights.

For the Washington Post article discussing the Supreme Court’s decision, click here.

Reconsidering Digital Readers, Thanks to the Amazon Kindle

Back in October, I criticized Library Journal editor John Berry's "Escape from Reading" for, among other things, oversimplifying new media as a form of "liberation" from reading books. Berry's personal dislike of reading is what seems to fuel his flawed argument, and it's fair to criticize him for letting his own bias obscure what could have been a thoughtful column. Yet after writing my entry, I realized that when it comes to the subject of digital books, I've been guilty of the same problem. With an occasional exception, my attitude towards e-books and e-book devices (hello, Sony Reader!) has been consistently negative, even though I had never actually used an e-book reader, or even done that much with Google Books. My problem is the opposite of Berry's--reading books is one of my favorite forms of mass media consumption, and I love buying books and managing my book collection at home. The experience of reading and buying physical books has left me disinclined to explore e-books, and that personal preference has colored my opinion of e-books as a viable option for the general public.

Hopefully, that's now beginning to change a bit. On New Year's Eve, a friend let me try out the Amazon Kindle that he had received as a Christmas present. And though I only used the Kindle for a few minutes, my impressions were generally positive. At just over 10 ounces, it weighs less than an average $14-16 retail paperback, and I found that it was fairly comfortable to hold aloft. The menu interface wasn't spectacular, but navigating to and from different books was simple after some trial and error. Most significant, in my opinion, was the screen. Amazon boasts about its "electronic-paper display," and that's understandable, because it really is quite sharp and paper-like. When I held it up close to a floor lamp, there was virtually no glare. Combined with adjustable font sizes, the Kindle's display is extremely readable.

Does that make it (or the Sony Reader) an adequate replacement for physical books? For some people, the answer may be yes; the Kindle has gained popularity (and remains sold-out), and e-books were a definite bright spot in what was otherwise a pretty glum 2008 for book publishers. My friend mentioned that the Kindle would be a supplement to his reading habits. He's going to read physical books regardless of technology, but having the option to buy relatively cheap e-books might entice him to make purchases that he wouldn't normally consider. This, I think, is a healthy approach. The Kindle still has significant limitations, including its price and how it renders periodical and web content. It's disappointing that its e-books are in a proprietary format (in other words, work only with the Kindle). Additionally, as my friend noted, it and other e-book readers still can't provide the same type of spontaneous reading experience where one can, say, peek ahead to the end of a chapter or flip back and forth between pages rapidly. It is possible to do those things on an e-book reader, but not in the same way.

Nevertheless, reading from and using a Kindle was enjoyable, and it was silly for me to have envisioned a soul-draining experience. It still is far from perfect, and the digital rights questions about e-books in general--such as the lack of resellability--remain valid. But there is a lot to like, and considering that the device is still in its 1.0 version, there are certainly possibilites for reaching heretofore untapped markets (consumers with disabilities and college students being two examples). For me, it's offered a personal reminder to try to not let preconceived notions and opinions overdetermine my thinking on the subject.

New Jersey's Flu Vaccination Requirement

This week, a New Jersey court is set to hear challenges to a newly implemented policy requiring children between the ages of six (6) months and five (5) to obtain a flu vaccination before being allowed to return to their licensed pre-school and child care centers. Citing health concerns, New Jersey is the first state to institute such a requirement.

As classrooms tend to be ideal places for children to spread illness, which often times is later passed on to family members at home, requiring this vaccine is seen as a measure to ensure the “overall public health”. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “[e]ach year, more than 200,000 people are hospitalized from flu complications and about 36,000 people die from the flu”; approximately 10% of those affected by the flu are children, and last year there were reports of 86 child deaths due to “flu-related complications”. Already in New Jersey, “[t]here have been about five cases of pediatric flu-related illnesses that required hospitalization this season.” Additionally, the CDC had previously recommended that all children between the ages of six (6) months and eighteen (18) years be immunized.

On the other side of the argument, parents are claiming that it should be their decision as to whether their child is immunized or not. Also, many parents claim they are hesitant to have their child(ren) vaccinated due to fears of health risks. In order to allow the parents a choice in this matter, the New Jersey Coalition for Vaccination Choice is attempting to obtain exemptions for any conscientious objectors.

The difficult issue in this scenario is the intrusion by the government into the lives of private citizens, but for purposes that will purportedly help the general public as much as the individual being intruded upon. Adding to the difficulty is that this requirement is only being levied upon those attending government approved facilities, which are arguably not required to be attended.

Parents in this case seem to have some options, albeit not very attractive options, such as: not use these facilities and keep their children at home, which is not very likely especially if both parents, or a single parent, are/is employed; find non-licensed daycares/preschools for their children, which raises obvious issues of its own; hire in-home care, which has several issues including cost; or, have their child vaccinated, which is problematic for many. Balancing the interests is not easy from a non-legal point of view, but it would seem that the government’s health interests will override those of the individuals. As evidenced by various challenges to smoking bans implemented by states in the past, courts have seemed to side with the overall health interests cited by the state over those of a select class. It would seem that this trend will continue in this case as well.

For the New York Times article, click here.

Five Favorites from 2008

--Hanna Rosin's reporting for The Atlantic
GetReligion's Terry Mattingly: "Rosin is a liberal’s liberal, when it comes to issues of science, religion and culture, but she is a brutally candid reporter and writer." Rosin's 2007 book God's Harvard was a critical, nuanced account of student experience at the fundamentalist Patrick Henry University in Virginia. Her two stories for The Atlantic this year were November's "A Boy's Life," which Mattingly discusses in the link above, and "American Murder Mystery" from the July/August issue. Both are fantastic pieces, challenging the ideological assumptions and conventional wisdom of both conservatives and liberals while providing first-rate analysis.

--Mark Silk's blog Spiritual Politics
Spiritual Politics first appeared in October 2007 as an election blog that would seemingly have multiple contributors. But Trinity College professor of religion Mark Silk has provided virtually all of the blog's posts since its inception, and that's been a good thing; his takes on religion and politics during the recent election season were consistently sound and insightful. Even better is that Spiritual Politics will have a post-election presence, as Silk continues to write regular updates.

--Constantine's Sword (documentary)
I have yet to read James Carroll's book Constantine's Sword, and can only imagine how much cutting and editing was necessary to create a documentary based on the seven hundred and fifty-plus page bestseller. Still the documentary makes for compelling viewing, especially as Carroll works through his own Catholic experience in an effort to understand the presence of militarism and anti-Semitism in Christian history. It's far from perfect--the issues Carroll raises require a lot more than ninety minutes of film--but certainly thought-provoking.

--Rightward Bound (eds. Bruce J. Schulman and Julian E. Zelizer) and The Family (by Jeff Sharlet)
Most of the books I read in the past twelve months weren't from 2008, but these two are notable exceptions; I reviewed both for PopMatters (see here and here). Rightward Bound convincingly argues that several factors from the 1970s help explain how conservatism began dominating American politics (and also why it has begun to fail in recent years). In The Family, Sharlet urges readers to reconsider fundamentalism, how religion influences politics, and the basic nature of American political power--a tall order, but one that he acomplishes with strong evidence and prose.

--The Hold Steady's Separation Sunday
There plenty of music I could list here, but the Hold Steady's most recent album is as good of a choice as any, combining several different rock influences into something creative, catchy, and worthy of many, many repeat listens.

Another victim of the economy . . . recycling

More evidence of the down turn in the economy is demonstrated by the decreased demand for packaging made from recycled materials.

The past couple of years have been very, very good to waste paper recycling exporters. The demand from Asia has been huge. Speaking in terms of volume, waste paper is one of our top exports. Unfortunately, over the last three months, the recycling industry has slowed due to the decline in consumer spending. Bales and bales of abandoned cardboard and newsprint just sit in Chinese ports. Material that was previously selling for $150 a ton was suddenly selling for $20. Recycling exporters were stunned.

The question then becomes – If China doesn’t want our recycling anymore, what happens to it? It may just end up in a landfill. Recycling (like most things) is based on an economic need. The sad fact is that no one is going to recycle if there is no money in it. Local recycling efforts are feasible because is it easier and cheaper to coordinate; however, not all recycling efforts are that simple. Whatever happened to reduce, reuse, recycle?

From NPR: Recycling Industry Slows as Consumers Shop Less

The Rising Cost of Higher Education

As the United States continues its attempts at economic recovery, the New York Times is reporting on another trend that may have more dire long-term implications. While most are aware of the ever increasing costs of college tuition, a recent report by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education finds that in the not so distant future many Americans will not be able to afford higher education.

“Over all, the report found, published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007 while median family income rose 147 percent.” It is argued that if this trend continues at a similar rate, a college education will no longer be affordable for many people. College loans have doubled in the last ten years, and low income families – who would be hit the hardest by such an increase – do not receive sufficient grant money to offset this increase in price.

Some are worrying that a reduction in the number of people who afford college would increase the educational gap between the United States and the rest of the world. Patrick M. Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education has stated that, “Already, we’re one of the few countries where 25- to 34-year-olds are less educated than older workers.” With such an educational disadvantage, the United States could easily fall behind many other countries in several important areas.

Public universities have acknowledged the rising tuition costs, but point to the options that are available to students today. People have the option to go to a community college (average tuition fee of $3,200.00), a private research institution (average tuition fee of $33,000.00) or a number of alternatives in between.

In order to help ensure a strong economy, education is a key factor. With the rest of the world recognizing the importance of higher education, the United States cannot ignore this potential problem. Luckily, there are more cost feasible choices for students (i.e. community college) which can provide students with useful skills and knowledge. However, for some these community colleges may not provide the education they are seeking; if tuition increases at the rates projected, these students may have to forego the specialized learning available at some private institutions, causing a lack of qualified employees in some key occupations.

Barbara Fisher and the Benefits of Community Gardening

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."

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.

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.

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.