Showing posts with label protected transaction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label protected transaction. Show all posts

Friday, February 2, 2024

Picking the wrong pony: wolves and people in Europe

 The Guardian has the story, within the larger story of controversy about wolves, and endangered species.

A wolf killed the EU president’s precious pony - then the fight to catch the predator began. After being hunted to near extinction, wolves have returned to Europe. But when one killed Ursula von der Leyen’s family pony, it ignited a high-stakes battle. Are the animals’ days numbered? by Patrick Barkham

A wolf killed a pony at night...

"Unluckily for the wolf, and perhaps for the entire wolf population of western Europe, Dolly was a cherished family pet belonging to the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, one of the most powerful people in the EU. Last September, a year after Dolly’s death, von der Leyen announced plans that to some wolf-defenders looked like revenge: the commission wants to reduce the wolf’s legal protection.


"Action had already been taken against Dolly’s killer. DNA evidence harvested from the pony’s carcass revealed that the wolf was an individual known as GW950m. This mature male wolf, which heads a pack (a wolf family usually numbering eight to 10) living around the von der Leyen residence, appears to have developed a taste for livestock. DNA tests on other carcasses implicates him in the deaths of about 70 sheep, horses, cattle and goats. Experts believe younger pack members might have copied his hunting methods. Because GW950m was now classified as a “problem wolf”, a permit was issued to allow hunters to shoot him legally (wolves can only be killed under exceptional circumstances, according to EU law). It was the seventh such licence to be issued in Lower Saxony, a state the size of Denmark with a thriving population of at least 500 wolves...

"Against the odds, more than a year after the licence to kill was first issued, GW950m remains at large, living quietly on a diet of mostly deer in forests east of Hanover.

...

"Wolves have adapted swiftly and surely to human-dominated landscapes. But people are struggling to adjust to the wolves. The concentration of packs, von der Leyen declared when announcing the commission’s review of wolf protection laws, “has become a real danger for livestock and potentially also for humans”. In December, the commission proposed to reduce the wolf’s status under the Bern Convention from “strictly protected” to “protected” in order to introduce “further flexibility” – potentially enabling wolves to be hunted and populations reduced across the EU.... “Wolves are a subject that might change elections,” says one German conservationist.

....

"The wolf’s revival in western Europe is actually an interesting accumulation of accidents. Before its return, EU member states including Germany pushed to ensure that this disappearing species was given the highest protection under the EU’s habitats directive in 1992. When the cold war ended, many eastern European farms were abandoned, meaning that Russian populations found it easier to pad westwards. When the wolf reached Germany, it found hiding places on disused military bases – and, initially, sympathy.

“If wolves had returned 50 years ago, they wouldn’t have stood a chance, because our view of nature was very different to today,” says Kenny Kenner, a wolf expert who collects sightings and DNA data on wolves for the Lower Saxony government, and leads walks to educate people about this fascinating, complicated animal. “We see ourselves as part of nature and, much more importantly, as dependent on nature. This led to the possibility that a species as difficult for us as the wolf could come back.”

Wednesday, January 24, 2024

Guns and drugs on the U.S. Mexico border

 Here are two stories about some of the illegal traffic on the border between the U.S. and Mexico.

First, the war on drugs is fought with American guns on both sides:

The NY Times has the story:

Appeals Court Revives Mexico’s Lawsuit Against Gunmakers. The decision, which is likely to be appealed, is one of the most significant setbacks for the gun industry since passage of a federal law that provided immunity from some lawsuits.  By Glenn Thrush  Jan. 22, 2024

"A federal appeals panel in Boston ruled on Monday that a $10 billion lawsuit filed by Mexico against U.S. gun manufacturers whose weapons are used by drug cartels can proceed, reversing a lower court that had dismissed the case.

"The decision, which is likely to be appealed, is one of the most significant setbacks for gunmakers since passage of a federal law nearly two decades ago that has provided immunity from lawsuits brought by the families of people killed and injured by their weapons.

"Mexico, in an attempt to challenge the reach of that law, sued six manufacturers in 2021, including Smith & Wesson, Glock and Ruger. It contended that the companies should be held liable for the trafficking of a half-million guns across the border a year, some of which were used in murders.

...

" lawyers for Mexico, assisted by U.S. gun control groups, claimed that the companies “aided and abetted the knowingly unlawful downstream trafficking” of their guns into Mexico.

"Gun violence is rampant in Mexico despite its near-blanket prohibition of firearms ownership.

"About 70 to 90 percent of guns trafficked in Mexico originated in the United States, according to Everytown Law, the legal arm of the gun control group founded by the former mayor of New York Michael R. Bloomberg.

"Gun control advocates hailed the decision on Monday by a three-judge panel, describing it as a milestone in holding the gun industry accountable."

***********

As for drugs, it turns out that harm reduction drugs are highly controlled in Mexico, so illegal drugs also flow both ways.

Here's that story, from the Guardian:

Carriers sneak life-saving drugs over border as Mexico battles opioid deaths  People forced to bring overdose-reversal drug naloxone from US, as critics accuse Mexican government of creating shortage. by Thomas Graham in Tijuana, Tue 23 Jan 2024 

"Every day, people cross the US-Mexico border with drugs – but not all of them are going north. Some head in the opposite direction with a hidden cargo of naloxone, a life-saving medicine that can reverse an opioid overdose but is so restricted as to be practically inaccessible in Mexico.

"This humanitarian contraband is necessary because Mexico’s border cities have their own problems with opioid use – problems that activists and researchers say are being made more deadly by government policy.

“Mexico has long seen itself as a production and transit country, but not a place of consumption,” said Cecilia Farfán Méndez, a researcher at the University of California at San Diego. “And a lot of the conversation is still around that being a US problem – not a Mexican one.”

...

"The situation has been exacerbated by a government policy that, aside from cutting budgets for harm reduction services like PrevenCasa, has also created shortages of life-saving medicines for opioid users.

"In response to the fentanyl crisis, authorities in the US made naloxone available without a prescription. Naloxone vending machines have proliferated across the country.

"But in Mexico naloxone remains strictly controlled – despite the efforts of some senators from Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s own party, Morena, who proposed a law to declassify it.

"The president, popularly known as Amlo, has criticised naloxone, asking whether it did any more than “prolong the agony” of addicts, and questioning who stood to profit from its sale."

###########

Earlier:

Sunday, January 22, 2023

Tuesday, October 31, 2023

US halts export of most civilian firearms and ammunition for 90 days.

One of many things that makes the U.S. unusual is the Constitutionally protected status of gun ownership and gun sales here.  Guns being guns, this comes with some built in negative externalities that we struggle to contain.  But we also export guns, to legal markets in other countries (as well as sometimes to illegal ones)  and this can impose negative externalities elsewhere.   Apparently the Commerce Department is reviewing the situation.

 The Guardian has the story (from the Reuters news service):

US halts export of most civilian firearms and ammunition for 90 days. Commerce department cites foreign policy interests and says it will review ‘risk of firearms’ diverted’ to ‘violate human rights’

"The US has stopped issuing export licenses for most civilian firearms and ammunition for 90 days for all non-governmental users, the commerce department said on Friday, citing national security and foreign policy interests.

"The commerce department did not provide further details for the pause, which also includes shotguns and optical sights, but said an urgent review will assess the “risk of firearms being diverted to entities or activities that promote regional instability, violate human rights, or fuel criminal activities”.

##########

Earlier:

Sunday, January 22, 2023

Monday, May 8, 2023

Guns and gun control

 In the U.S., gun sales are both a protected transaction and a repugnant one. The right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, but as school shootings and other mass casualty attacks on innocents have become a staple of the news, there have been periodic attempts to curb sales, particularly of automatic weapons.  The state of Washington is the latest to ban the sale of certain particular automatic weapons, which are legally available in other states, and already very widely distributed.

The NYT has the story:

Selling AR-15-Style Rifles Is Now Banned in 9 States  By Mike Baker and Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs

"Washington State approved a package of gun control measures on Tuesday that includes a ban on the sale of military-style semiautomatic weapons, making it the ninth state to join efforts to prevent the distribution of AR-15s and other powerful rifles often used in mass shootings.

"The new laws put Washington in the ranks of states with the strongest gun control measures in the nation. They include a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases, gun safety training requirements and a provision allowing the state attorney general and consumers to sue gun manufacturers or dealers under public nuisance laws if they negligently allow their guns to fall into the hands of minors or “dangerous individuals.”

"Gun rights proponents swiftly filed a lawsuit to challenge the semiautomatic rifle ban, saying it infringed on Second Amendment rights.

"Washington is among a series of states, largely led by Democrats, that have advanced gun legislation this year as the nation continues to grapple with repeated mass shootings. Republicans have moved in the opposite direction, with lawmakers in several states introducing legislation to expand the ability to carry concealed weapons without a permit and eliminate such things as gun-free zones, background checks and red-flag laws, which allow the removal of guns from people deemed to be at high risk of violence or self-harm.

...

"All of the bans currently in place allow people to keep weapons previously purchased, but states vary on how those so-called legacy weapons are regulated, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence."

**********

Earlier:

Sunday, April 16, 2023

Sunday, April 16, 2023

The (American) market for assault rifles

There was a time when Americans thought that rifles were for hunting game, and assault weapons were banned.  That has changed.

The Washington Post has the story:

The gun that divides a nation. The AR-15 thrives in times of tension and tragedy. This is how it came to dominate the marketplace – and loom so large in the American psyche. By Todd C. Frankel, Shawn Boburg, Josh Dawsey, Ashley Parker and Alex Horton 

"The AR-15 wasn’t supposed to be a bestseller.

"The rugged, powerful weapon was originally designed as a soldiers’ rifle in the late 1950s. “An outstanding weapon with phenomenal lethality,” an internal Pentagon report raved. It soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam War, where the weapon earned a new name: the M16.

...

"Today, the AR-15 is the best-selling rifle in the United States, industry figures indicate. About 1 in 20 U.S. adults — or roughly 16 million people — own at least one AR-15, according to polling data from The Washington Post and Ipsos.

...

"One Republican lawmaker, Rep. Barry Moore of Alabama, introduced a bill in February to declare the AR-15 the “National Gun of America.

"It also has become a stark symbol of the nation’s gun violence epidemic. Ten of the 17 deadliest U.S. mass shootings since 2012 have involved AR-15s.

...

"the U.S. firearms industry came to embrace the gun’s political and cultural significance as a marketing advantage as it grasped for new revenue.

"The shift began after the 2004 expiration of a federal assault weapons ban that had blocked the sales of many semiautomatic rifles. 

...

"Today, the industry estimates that at least 20 million AR-15s are stored and stashed across the country.

"More than 13.7 million of those have been manufactured by U.S. gunmakers just since the Newtown massacre in late 2012"

*************

NPR puts some history into perspective:

The Nashville school shooting highlights the partisan divide over gun legislation , by Ron Elving, April 1, 2023

"The Stockton schoolyard shooting in 1989

...

"The Stockton story was national news, featured on the cover of Time magazine with the headline "Armed America." Public alarm at Stockton pushed the legislature to be the first to prohibit the sale of assault weapons that year.

"Stockton was still reverberating three years later when California, the home of Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, sent two liberal Democrats, both women, to the U.S. Senate It also stocked its legislature and congressional delegation with big Democratic majorities and gave its Electoral College vote to Bill Clinton.

"One of the two women senators elected that year was former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein, who had first become mayor when her predecessor was shot to death in his office in the 1970s. She had long been outspoken on gun control and brought that commitment to Washington, D.C., becoming one of the principal sponsors of a bill banning assault weapons ban in her first year.

"The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994

"Feinstein and her cosponsors wanted to end the sale or manufacture of 14 categories of semi-automatic assault weapons. They also wanted to go beyond the California ban by outlawing copycat versions of earlier models and high-volume detachable magazines that held more than 10 rounds.

"But the bill did not address the status of an estimated one million assault weapons nationwide. "Essentially what this legislation does is create a freeze," she said. She lamented the resistance that rarely produced actual arguments among her colleagues. She said had never realized "the power of the NRA in this town."

...

"There were literally hundreds of exceptions included in the final version, distressing many of the bill's supporters. But getting the ban into the crime package to be passed in that Congress (with billions in new police funding) required many compromises. Ultimately, to get to a majority, Feinstein would have to accept a sunset provision by which her restrictions would need reenactment after 10 years.

...

"So when the 10-year expiration date on Feinstein's bill arrived in 2004, Democrats were no longer the majority party in Congress and all attempts to extend the 1994 ban were unavailing.

...

"The Sandy Hook Test in 2012

The next time serious energy developed behind renewing the ban was in the winter of 2012-2013. Barack Obama had just been reelected president, and the Senate was still in Democratic hands.

"Just as important, the effort to address the gun issue had been given an enormous boost by a new and more horrific tragedy.

"On Dec. 12, 2012, Adam Lanza, 20 — described by counselors as fascinated with mass shootings — killed his mother and took guns she had legally purchased to a Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

"There he shot dead 20 children, ages 6 and 7. He also killed six adults on the school staff. Then he killed himself.

"The national shock at the time is hard to appreciate a decade later, as there have been so many like it. 

...

"But the 113th Congress came and went in 2013 and 2014 without passing notable gun legislation. A compromise measure on background checks, offered by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey, got 54 votes in the Senate but needed 60.

"As for prospects for reviving gun legislation in the current Congress, the situation looks much as it did a decade ago. The 118th Congress has a Senate where Democrats have a nominal majority that depends on the cooperation of several independents. Feinstein is still in the Senate, the longest-serving incumbent Democrat, but planning to retire next year.

"The current House, like that of a decade ago, has a Republican majority led by a speaker whose power depends on placating a hardcore group known as the House Freedom Caucus."

Thursday, February 16, 2023

Arms for children but not women in Missouri

 The Washington Post has the story:

Missouri Republicans block proposed ban on kids carrying guns in public By Timothy Bella

"The Republican-controlled Missouri House of Representatives rejected a proposal Wednesday that would have banned children from being able to openly carry firearms on public land without adult supervision.

"The proposal, which was part of a long debate in the chamber on how to fight crime in St. Louis, was soundly defeated by a vote of 104-39, with just one Republican voting in support of the ban.

...

"Since 2017, Missouri residents have not been required to have a permit for concealed carry, after lawmakers in the Missouri House voted to override a veto by then-Gov. Jay Nixon (D) of a broad gun-rights bill. The law does not require gun owners to take safety training or have a criminal-background check to carry concealed firearms in most public places. The move was celebrated by Republicans, but law enforcement officials warned that the law was “going to make officers a lot more apprehensive,” St. Louis Public Radio reported at the time.

"The proposal’s defeat this week comes almost a month after Missouri Republicans in the state House made news for a voting to tighten the dress code for women legislators, while leaving the men’s dress code alone. Missouri House Republicans sought to require women to wear a blazer when in the chamber. The state House eventually approved a modified version of the proposal, which allows for cardigans as well as jackets but still requires women’s arms to be concealed."

Wednesday, February 15, 2023

Domestic abusers have the right to bear arms--5th Circuit Court of Appeals

 In the U.S., the right to bear arms is a protected transaction. That can lead to some controversial decisions. 

Here's the story from Bloomberg:

Gun Ruling Giving Domestic Abusers Rights Prompts Garland Rebuke By Erik Larson

"The decades-old US law barring domestic abusers from possessing firearms contradicts the nation’s “historical tradition” of access to guns even for people who may not be “model citizens,” an appeals court said in a ruling that prompted a Justice Department rebuke.

"The statute is unconstitutional because it gives too much power to Congress to determine who qualifies as “law-abiding, responsible citizens” when it comes to gun ownership, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday.

...

"The ruling vacated the conviction of a Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, who pleaded guilty to violating the law by keeping a pistol at home despite being subject to a civil domestic-violence restraining order for assaulting his former girlfriend. It’s the latest fallout from a US Supreme Court ruling in June that paved the way for courts to reconsider a wide variety of gun restrictions.

...

“Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal,” said the appellate panel, comprised of two judges appointed by former President Donald Trump and one by Ronald Reagan.

"Rahimi’s home was searched after he was involved in five shootings in a two-month span, including firing at a law enforcement vehicle in December 2020, firing at a driver after getting in a car accident and shooting multiple rounds in the air in January 2021 “after his friend’s credit card was declined at a Whataburger restaurant,” the appeals court said."

********

Here's the Supreme Court decision, NRA v. Bruen on which the 5th Circuit relied:

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.

No. 20–843. Argued November 3, 2021—Decided June 23, 2022 

Syllabus:

"New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense."

Thursday, December 29, 2022

Towards greater gun safety in San Jose

 The mayor of San Jose, CA, has some thoughts on making guns and gun ownership less dangerous, in a  NY Times opinion column:

400 Million Guns Aren’t Going to Just Go Away. In San Jose, We’re Trying Something New. By Sam Liccardo (Mr. Liccardo, a Democrat, has been the mayor of San Jose, Calif., since 2015. He is a former federal and local prosecutor.)

"Amid the rising tide of firearms, reducing gun deaths and injuries requires new solutions. In San Jose, Calif., where I am mayor, we’ve embarked on two approaches untried in any other city or state: We’re imposing an annual fee on gun-owning residents and investing the revenues in violence prevention efforts. And on Jan. 1, the city will begin requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance to compensate victims harmed by the negligent or reckless use of a firearm.

...

"Most gun-owning residents can comply with the insurance mandate with little or no additional cost under standard homeowners’ and renters’ policies. As more jurisdictions adopt an insurance requirement — legislators in New Jersey and California have recently proposed them — we expect that the insurance industry will become increasingly invested in reducing gun-related harm. Premiums will reflect the risks of gun ownership and will adjust accordingly, in the same way that auto insurers offer “good driver” discounts or how they incentivized the installation of anti-lock brakes and airbags in the past.

"Of course, in the realm of gun regulation, no good deed goes unlitigated. Three groups sued San Jose after the ordinance imposing the fee and insurance requirement passed. A Federal District Court declined their pleas for an injunction to stop the ordinance from taking effect, finding no unconstitutional burden on Second Amendment rights where “there are no means by which a San Jose gun owner may be deprived of his or her firearm.”

Saturday, June 25, 2022

San Francisco's Lowell High School admissions will return to merit-based system

 The SF Chronicle has the latest twist in this involved story over San Francisco's elite Lowell High School.

Lowell High School admissions will return to merit-based system after S.F. school board vote  by Jill Tucker

"After nearly two years of intense and bitter debate, test scores and grades will once again determine which San Francisco students are admitted to Lowell High School after the city’s school board decided to return to the merit-based admission system Wednesday.

"In a 4-3 vote, the school board decided to restore the previous merit process after two years of using a lottery-based system. The vote will now apply to freshman entering in the fall of 2023 as well as future classes, unless the board takes further action in the future to change the admission process.

...

"The board’s decision was the latest inflection point in the nearly two-year saga featuring feuding public officials, a lawsuit and accusations of racism over which students are eligible to attend Lowell, long considered one of the highest-performing public high schools in the country.

"The board first approved a switch to a lottery system in October 2020, citing a lack of academic data given the switch to distance learning earlier that year.

"A board majority then made that decision permanent four months later, citing a lack of diversity and racism at the elite academic schools. But the hurried vote sparked a lawsuit and then a judge’s ruling that the district violated laws related to the Brown Act, which regulate public meetings.

"The board then had to backpedal, reversing the decision before extending the lottery process for another year."

***********

Earlier:

Sunday, April 17, 2022

Sunday, March 27, 2022

Guns (concealed carry) and marijuana (recreational): two US maps

 In both maps, brown is the color of permissiveness.  E.g. on the northern border, only Maine and Montana don't require permits/prescriptions for either guns or marijuana...

The gun map is from this Washington Post story: Nearly half the country requires no permit to carry a concealed weapon — and it’s a growing trend By Kim Bellware



xxxxxxxxxxxxx
from https://mjbizdaily.com/map-of-us-marijuana-legalization-by-state/





Monday, September 27, 2021

Doctors and guns

 Americans are divided about  guns, and so are American doctors. While the American Medical Association regards guns as a public health crisis (https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-calls-gun-violence-public-health-crisis), a recent survey of the American College of Surgeons reveals that many surgeons are gun owners who store loaded guns unlocked at home.

Firearm Storage Practices of US Members of the American College of Surgeons  by Brendan T.CampbellMD, MPH, FACS, Deborah A.KuhlsMD, FACS, Cynthia L.TalleyMD, FACS, Eileen M.BulgerMD, FACS, Ronald M.StewartMD, FACS, Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Volume 233, Issue 3, September 2021, Pages 331-336  ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2021.05.024

Background: As a part of its firearm injury prevention action plan, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) surveyed the entire US ACS membership regarding individual members' knowledge, experience, attitudes, degree of support for ACS Committee on Trauma (COT) firearm programs, and degree of support for a range of firearm injury prevention policies. This survey included questions regarding members' prevalence of firearm ownership, type of firearm(s) owned, type of firearm(s) in the home, personal reasons for firearm ownership, and methods of firearm/ammunition storage.

...

Conclusions: A significant percentage of ACS members keep firearms in their home, and nearly one-third store firearms in an unlocked and loaded fashion. Safe storage is a basic tenet of responsible firearm ownership. These data present opportunities for engaging surgeons in efforts to improve safe firearm storage.


HT: Irene Wapnir


Saturday, November 7, 2020

Bernard Cohen (1934-2020), who convinced the Supreme Court that bans on inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional

 Flags flew at half staff in Virginia last month, marking the death of Bernard Cohen, and also marking how much has changed in Virginia and the U.S. since he argued in the Supreme Court against the Virginia law that forbid inter-racial marriage. (The legalization of same sex marriage was still decades in the future.)

Va. flags to be half-staff Friday in memory of late Bernard Cohen, lawyer in Loving v. Virginia case   by MATTHEW BARAKAT, AP 

"Cohen and legal colleague Phil Hirschkop represented Richard and Mildred Loving, a white man and Black woman who were convicted in Virginia in 1959 of illegally cohabiting as man and wife and ordered to leave the state for 25 years.

"Cohen and Hirschkop represented the Lovings as they sought to have their conviction overturned. It resulted in the Supreme Court’s unanimous 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling, which declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional."

**************

In a 1963 appeal, the Virginia trial judge declared:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages,” the judge wrote in upholding the sentence. “The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.”

*************

Here's the Supreme Court decision 

LOVING  v. VIRGINIA , SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES388 U.S. 1

June 12, 1967, Decided

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

"These convictions must be reversed."

Wednesday, November 4, 2020

Wearing military honors is a protected transaction

 

The New Yorker has an interesting story that sheds light on how we think of honorable or exceptional military service, and how claims about it are not so easy to verify and are (therefore) sometimes made falsely in public ways. (The story focuses on a Republican primary campaign for sheriff in a Texas county, in which both candidates lied about their military service.)

 How to Spot a Military Impostor--The detectives who investigate fake stories of military service use many tools, including shame.  By Rachel Monroe

"Politicians lie to get us into wars; generals lie about how well things are going; soldiers lie about what they did during their service. In 1782, when George Washington awarded ribbons and badges to valorous Revolutionary War troops, he was already worrying about pretenders. “Should any who are not entitled to these honors have the insolence to assume the badges of them they shall be severely punished,” he wrote. When Walter Washington Williams, thought to be the last surviving veteran of the Confederate Army, died, in 1959, President Eisenhower called for a national day of mourning. It turned out that Williams had fabricated his service, and that the second-longest-surviving Confederate soldier probably had, too. In fact, according to the Civil War historian William Marvel, “every one of the last dozen recognized Confederates was bogus.” But it’s only recently that lying about military service has been considered a particularly heinous form of lying, one with its own name: stolen valor.

...

"...wearing an unearned military medal was against the law, but there was no particular consideration given to lies about military service; the same chapter of the federal statute also made it illegal to proffer a fake police badge, pretend to be a member of 4-H, or misuse the likeness of Smokey Bear. That began to change in 2004, after an Arizona man was featured in a local newspaper as a highly decorated veteran who had, among other improbable exploits, assisted in the capture of Saddam Hussein. Sterner helped expose him as a liar, but he was frustrated that there was no criminal penalty. It wasn’t illegal to lie about a medal—it was only when you pinned it on your lapel that you broke the law.

...

"The Stolen Valor Act of 2005, written in part by Pam Sterner, was introduced the year that millions of filmgoers watched “Wedding Crashers,” in which Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson’s characters lie about being Purple Heart recipients. On September 7, 2006, the act, which made it a federal crime to falsely claim receipt of a military award or decoration, passed in the Senate by unanimous consent; President George W. Bush signed it into law soon afterward. But, six years later, in United States v. Alvarez, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Xavier Alvarez, a water-district official in Southern California, who had been convicted of lying about receiving the Medal of Honor. (Alvarez had also falsely claimed to be a professional ice-hockey player and to have been married to a Mexican movie star.) The Court found that the Stolen Valor Act violated the First Amendment. Congress passed an amended statute, which made it illegal to fraudulently wear medals, embellish rank, or make false claims of service in order to obtain money or some other tangible benefit, making stolen valor an issue of fraud rather than of speech. "

Saturday, August 1, 2020

Arranged marriage, in India, on television

The Guardian and the Indian Express have the story about a tv show about arranged marriage, a venerable institution that is becoming controversial.

Here's the Guardian:

Indian Matchmaking: Netflix's 'divisive' dating show causes storm
Series following contestants hoping to be chosen for arranged marriage has divided opinion in India
by Hannah Ellis-Petersen

"For some, Indian Matchmaking represents an unacceptable normalising of the regressive standards forced on Indian women to in order to be seen as a “suitable” wife, while pushing the unspoken issue of caste under the carpet.
...
"The eight-part series follows Taparia as she attempts to find appropriate matches for clients both in India and across the world in order to set up arranged marriages, often on behalf of their client’s parents. It is a show set in a world of upper-class affluence, where Indian families can afford to hire Taparia’s expensive services and even fly her across the world to find them, or their children, a suitable match.

"Arranged marriage remains prevalent in India. As Taparia says in the show, arranged marriage is just described as “marriage” while it is “love marriage” that is spoken of as outside the norm. Newspapers are still full of matrimonial adverts where women are reduced to three-line descriptions of their “fair skinned”, “accomplished” or “modern yet traditional” attributes.

"Indian Matchmaking’s uncritical presentation of its clients’ “criteria” – usually fair-skinned women from a “good” family - has come in for particular criticism.

"Critics have said the show perpetuates damaging ideas around colourism and caste – the Hindu system of hierarchy, which rigidly designates someone’s class and social status. Dalits, India’s lowest class, still undergo rampant discrimination and abuse in society while the upper Brahmin caste hold much of the power and influence. Cross-caste marriage in India can get you killed.

“Indian Matchmaking is really a cesspool of casteism, colourism, sexism, classism,” wrote one Twitter user."
***********

And here's the Indian Express:

Indian Matchmaking: An 8-episode of misguided gender politics, ultimately a betrayal for Indian audiences
By cherry picking its clients and assorting stories it wants to tell, by ticking boxes of caste, religion and class as imperative for an arranged alliance, Indian Matchmaking panders to the West gaze with complying obedience.
by Ishita Sengupta

"Positioned as an outlet to familiarise the world with a practice peculiar to India and Indians; the documentary could have been a first-hand exploration about the evolving origin of a cultural custom and the multifarious ways people go about it. And for millennials back home, it could affirm our rejection of a practice we long recognise as outdated or be a vehicle to convince us of its efficiency in a language we comprehend better than our parents’ monologues. But Indian Matchmaking dilutes an age-old practice by blunting the pointed shards on which it has stood for years. The end result is an eight-episode betrayal for the audience in India and a cut-to-fit documentary about the country and its traditions for the West, confirming every suspicion they nurtured.

"Created by Smriti Mundhra, who previously co-directed A Suitable Girl in 2017, it follows Sima Taparia, one of India’s top matchmakers as she visits her clientele spread across India and abroad. At the very outset, Taparia (“from Mumbai”) insists, “Matches are made in heaven and God has given me the job of making them successful on earth,” thereby placing herself beyond reproach. But in her job of a self-declared messiah (it is never shown how much she earns) intending to bring together people with the supposed divine connection, she falls back on caste, class, complexion, height and sometimes breadth of smiles as plausible criteria for two people to give each other a shot at spending their lives together."
***********

And Livemint:

Opinion | What economic studies say about our marriage market
 29 Jul 2020,  by Anirudh Tagat
"A matchmaking show on Netflix seems to skim over the market deficiencies that scholars have studied in depth"
*************
Update:  and this, from the NY Times, Aug 5--

By Sanjena Sathian

"It’s easy to applaud stories about rejecting old customs in favor of modern ideals. It’s harder, yet worthwhile, to sit with the subtler tension between tradition and modernity. This is what the great marriage plots have always considered: a mannered society, and how to live within it."

Wednesday, June 10, 2020

Laws and law enforcement for actions whose illegality is controversial (the case of 'honor killing')

Repugnant transactions and actions are sometimes banned with the full force of the law: consider  e.g. narcotics trafficking in the U.S., where our prisons are full of people convicted of drug crimes.   But sometimes, a legal ban comes with just a slap on the wrist: e.g., also in the U.S., prostitution is illegal almost everywhere, but mostly treated as a misdemeanor, not a serious crime. 

The punishment may not always fit the crime, but it tells us something about how legislators view the seriousness of the crime. 

So I was struck by the first sentences of this NY Times story about an "honor killing" in Iran:

A Daughter Is Beheaded, and Iran Asks if Women Have a Right to Safety
The so-called honor killing of a 14-year-old girl in Iran has shaken the country and forced an examination of its failure to protect women and children.

"Before he beheaded his 14-year-old daughter with a farming sickle, Reza Ashrafi called a lawyer.

"His daughter, Romina, was going to dishonor the family by running off with her 29-year-old boyfriend, he said. What kind of punishment, he asked the lawyer, would he get for killing her?

"The lawyer assured him that as the girl’s guardian he would not face capital punishment but at most 3 to 10 years in jail, Mr. Ashrafi’s relatives told an Iranian newspaper.

"Three weeks later, Mr. Ashrafi, a 37-year-old farmer, marched into the bedroom where the girl was sleeping and decapitated her.

Thursday, April 2, 2020

Bikes and guns while sheltering in place in Santa Clara County (bikes are essential, guns are not)

From the Santa Clara County Department of Public Health, a new shelter in place order that defines, among other things, "essential businesses" which are those that can keep operating from their traditional premises (as opposed to only making home deliveries):


Coronavirus Frequently Asked Questions
MARCH 31, 2020 SUPERSEDING SHELTER-IN-PLACE ORDER 

"This new Order requires that most people continue sheltering in their place of residence until May 3, 2020.  This new Order replaces the prior Shelter-in-Place Order, which was set to expire on April 7, 2020.  It also adds to the list of restrictions to slow the spread of the COVID-19 disease.

"You are still allowed to participate in “essential activities” or to work for an “essential business” if it is not possible for you to work from home."

There follows a long list of essential businesses, and a long set of Q's and A's to guide the perplexed.

Among the Essential businesses:

"Bicycle repair and supply shops"
********************

and there's this Q&A:

"Can gun shops selling firearms and ammunition continue to keep their storefronts open? 

"No.  Gun shops are not essential businesses under the Order.  The Order allows delivery of inventory directly to customers at their residences in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, but gun shops may not make sales from their storefronts. "
*********
I imagine the situation is different in Texas.

Expect a case to reach the Supreme Court in a few years...

Thursday, February 27, 2020

Proposal to decriminalize polygamy in Utah

Marriage is special, a protected transaction in the U.S. and elsewhere, and that has led to odd situations as social mores change.  Same sex marriage is now legal in every U.S. state, but long before that happened, laws against homosexual sex had already been repealed. So same sex couples were able to live peacefully together before they could marry.*

In much the same way, it is not a crime in most places for unmarried people to live together, and start families.  The phrase 'polyamory' is sometimes applied to romantic relations among multiple adults.  But marriage, no longer defined as a relation between one man and one woman, is still defined as a relation between two people (but now they can also be of the same sex).  That "two-ness" may be starting to change too.

The WSJ has the story:

Utah Lawmakers Seek to Decriminalize Polygamy
Sponsor says bill will help ‘otherwise law-abiding consenting adults who practice polygamy’
By Talal Ansari

"Utah could decriminalize polygamy for the first time in 85 years.

"Lawmakers in the state House are considering legislation that would reclassify bigamy as an infraction in certain circumstances. The Republican-controlled Senate unanimously passed the bill earlier this week.

"More than 60% of Utah’s population belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, colloquially known as the Mormon Church, which practiced polygamy early in its history but banned it more than a century ago.

"Under current state law, bigamy is a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. Bigamy is a legal term, defined as marrying someone while being legally married to another person.
...
"Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes has said his office only prosecutes bigamy crimes “against those who induce marriage under false pretenses or if there is a collateral malfeasance.”

"Sen. Henderson has said her bill would essentially codify the attorney general’s prevailing practices into law.
...
"Polygamy was outlawed in the U.S. in the 1880s. The practice was banned by the Mormon Church in 1890, as Utah sought statehood. Utah wouldn’t become a state until 1896, under the condition that it explicitly ban polygamy in its constitution.


"Since then, the state and the Mormon Church have taken a hard stance against polygamy, with the latter excommunicating its members for engaging in plural marriage.

"In 1935, the state criminalized bigamy. Those moves pushed polygamists to the fringes of society and in geographic isolation.

"The law has been challenged over the years. In 2013, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups declared unconstitutional a key portion of Utah’s polygamy law after it was challenged by stars of the reality-television show “Sister Wives.” An appeals court later dismissed that decision and the Supreme Court decided not to hear the appeal.

"According to a Gallup poll, acceptance of polygamy appears to be increasing in the U.S. In 2018, 18% of Americans believed marrying more than one person was morally acceptable. In 2003, 7% of those asked took the same stance."
*********

In common usage, I think "bigamy" refers to one person having two spouses (often a man with two wives), but it sounds as if, used as a legal term in Utah, bigamy includes what used to be called polygamy,  the situation of having more than one spouse at the same time. The usual form of polygamy is polygyny, when a man has more that one wife. A less usual form of polygamy is polyandry, when a woman has more than one husband.

All these terms arose when marriage, even multiple marriage, was thought of as between men and women.  We may need new terms for plural marriage now that we recognize same sex marriages.  For example, in a plural marriage of the future, will all the members be married to each other?

This would make legalizing plural marriage potentially more difficult, in terms of defining the legal status of all the spouses, than was legalizing same sex marriage.  In the case of same sex marriage, all the customary rights and obligations of traditional marriage in each state could be extended to same sex couples by a judicial order.  But, e.g. how does divorce work in a plural marriage--is it pairwise, or is it more like dissolving a partnership, or resigning from a partnership?  Can some parts of the marriage persist while other parts are dissolved?

This suggests to me that it may be some time before we see new, plural forms of marriage enshrined in law.  But I wouldn't bet the farm against it in the long term.

(In the meantime, I think we can say that if you support plural marriage, that's big o' you.)
**********

*In a geographically related story, the Salt Lake Tribune reported last week
BYU students celebrate as school removes ‘Homosexual Behavior’ section from its online Honor Code

Saturday, December 7, 2019

Sex, lies, videotape and...blackmail?

The NY Times has a very interesting story about how it, and two very prominent lawyers, became involved with a man who claimed to have access to videotapes of important men having sex with underrage women.  It touches on the subtle difference between blackmail and some kinds of legal settlement.

Jeffrey Epstein, Blackmail and a Lucrative ‘Hot List’
A shadowy hacker claimed to have the financier’s sex tapes. Two top lawyers wondered: What would the men in those videos pay to keep them secret?
*********

Matt Levine over at Bloomberg has an interesting followup article that begins this way:

"The basic “mystery of blackmail” is:

  1. If I know that you have done some bad secret stuff, it is totally legal for me to publish that information.
  2. It is also totally legal for me to keep it quiet.
  3. In general, if it is legal for me to do or not do something, and you’d prefer that I (not) do it, I can ask you for money in exchange for (not) doing it.
  4. But if I ask you for money in exchange for not publishing bad stuff about you, that’s blackmail, and it’s a crime.

The mystery is why blackmail should be illegal when its component parts aren’t. But there’s another practical mystery about blackmail, which is:

  1. If you have done some bad stuff to me, and no one knows about it, I am once again free to tell everyone, or not.
  2. If I go to you and say “give me a million dollars or I will tell people,” that is blackmail and I go to prison.
  3. But if I go to you and say “I am going to sue you for doing the bad stuff to me, I am filing my case on Monday, but I am willing to settle for $1 million and sign a nondisclosure agreement in connection with the settlement,” that is fine, that is just how lawsuits work."
****************
Earlier related posts (on blackmail as a repugnant transaction that is sometimes occasioned by the knowledge that the victim has engaged in a different repugant transaction, and that can sometimes be whitewashed by the protected transaction of legal action...):

Monday, November 2, 2009

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Sunday, December 1, 2019

Divorce as a repugnant transaction

A recent obituary reminds me that divorce used to be a repugnant transaction, to which there were barriers even when both partners in a marriage were eager to end it on agreed upon terms.  It was a repugnant transaction because of the way we regard marriage as a protected transaction.

Jerome Wilson, Key in Revamping New York Divorce Law, Dies at 88
As a legislator in 1966, he led a commission that pushed to broaden the legal grounds for divorce. New York had been the last state to recognize only adultery.

"Jerome L. Wilson, a former Democratic state senator from Manhattan who helped liberalize a rigorous 18th-century law that had left New York as the sole state that required a spouse to prove adultery as the only legal ground for divorce, died on Friday
...
"The amended act, which took effect on Sept. 1, 1967, added four other grounds for divorce: cruel treatment, abandonment for two years, the sentencing of a spouse to prison for five years or more and a couple’s living voluntarily apart for at least two years.
...
"In the second year after the law went into effect, the number of divorces granted in New York ballooned to 18,000 in all five categories, compared with 4,000 granted only for adultery during the last year that the old law was in effect.

"Supporters of the changes said the new law also reduced instances of perjury (because so many estranged spouses had to lie about allegations of adultery) and end runs by wealthier couples who could afford to fly to Mexico or Nevada and remain there for two weeks to qualify for a divorce.
...
"Mr. Wilson’s first marriage, in 1957 to Frances Roberts, ended in divorce."

Monday, April 22, 2019

Gun sales in America: both repugnant and protected transactions

Two stories remind me of the special status of gun sales in the U.S., and the corresponding political divisions between those who would like to see them more regulated (i.e. those who regard at least some gun sales as repugnant) and those who see regulation as a threat to the special protections offered guns by the U.S. constitution, whose second amendment states
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

From the NY Times:
When Sheriffs Say No: Disputes Erupt Over Enforcing New Gun Laws

"New Mexico’s governor is feudingwith county sheriffs, accusing them of going “rogue” by refusing to enforce new gun control legislation. Counties in Oregon are passing militia-backed measures against stricter gun laws. Washington State is warning sheriffsthey could face legal action if they don’t run enhanced background checks approved by voters.
"As states have approved dozens of restrictive gun control measures since the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., last year, efforts to resist such laws have gathered strength around the nation as rural gun owners say their rights are being violated.
...
"In New Mexico and elsewhere, the disputes generally reflect tension between cities that support stricter gun laws and rural areas that want to bolster protections for gun owners. The pushback against new laws generally seeks to maintain existing gun ownership rights; most have not yet been challenged in court.
"The disputes around the country over the gun control measures raise vexing questions about the rule of law. Governors claim that local sheriffs cannot pick which laws to enforce, but some states have already grappled with low compliance with other gun laws.
***************
A different aspect of the story is addressed by the New Yorker:

"in recent years, burglaries at gun shops and other federal firearms licensees have increased, from three hundred and seventy-seven, in 2012, to five hundred and seventy-seven, in 2017. This is partly because guns are so readily available. There are some sixty-three thousand licensed gun dealers in America—more than twice the number of McDonald’s and Starbucks locations combined. These retailers operate out of storefronts, pawnshops, and homes. (The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives doesn’t specify how many dealers are based in homes, but officials say that the majority of thefts occur in brick-and-mortar stores.) Federal regulators have set strict security protocols for other businesses that deal in dangerous products. Pharmacies must lock opioids and other controlled substances in fortified cabinets. Explosives makers have to keep volatile materials in boxes or rooms capable of withstanding explosions. Banks, in order to maintain federal deposit insurance, have to hire security officers. But there are no such requirements for gun stores, and criminals are taking advantage. Between 2012 and 2017, burglars stole more than thirty-two thousand firearms from gun dealers.