Relates the gripping story of a major public health effort diverted and distorted for private gain.

"A radical case for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment as the only way to control gun violence in America There's an average of one mass shooting per day in the United States. Given the ineffectiveness of the gun control lobby, it's time for a strategy with spine. In Repeal the Second Amendment, Allan J. Lichtman has written the first book that uses history, legal theory and up-to-the-minute data to make a compelling case for the amendment's repeal in order to create a clear road to sensible gun control in the US. Repeal the Second Amendment explores both the true history and current interpretation of the Second Amendment to expose the NRA's blatant historical manipulations and irresponsible fake news releases. Lichtman looks at the history of firearms and gun regulations from colonial times to the present to explain how a historically forgotten sentence in the Constitution has become a flash point of recent politics that benefits only of the gun industry, their lobbyists, and the politicians on their payroll. He probes court decisions and the effective lobbying and public relations strategies of the gun lobby as well as the ineffectiveness of the gun control movement for lessons in doing better. What emerges is a clear and cogent plan - repeal and replace the Second Amendment without taking guns away from anyone who has them now - to make the US a safer place. It's time to Repeal the Second Amendment, and Allan Lichtman is the man to bring this radical plan to America"--

“Diversity” has become a mantra within discussions of university admissions policies and many other arenas of American society. In the essays collected here, Sanford Levinson, a leading scholar of constitutional law and American government, wrestles with various notions of diversity. He begins by explaining why he finds the concept to be almost useless as a genuine guide to public policy. Discussing affirmative action in university admissions, including the now famous University of Michigan Law School case, he argues both that there may be good reasons to use preferences—including race and ethnicity—and that these reasons have relatively little to do with any cogently developed theory of diversity. Distinguished by Levinson’s characteristic open-mindedness and willingness to tease out the full implications of various claims, each of these nine essays, written over the past decade, develops a case study focusing on a particular aspect of public life in a richly diverse, and sometimes bitterly divided, society. Although most discussions of diversity have focused on race and ethnicity, Levinson is particularly interested in religious diversity and its implications. Why, he asks, do arguments for racial and ethnic diversity not also counsel a concern to achieve religious diversity within a student body? He considers the propriety of judges drawing on their religious views in making legal decisions and the kinds of questions Senators should feel free to ask nominees to the federal judiciary who have proclaimed the importance of their religion in structuring their own lives. In exploring the sense in which Sandy Koufax can be said to be a “Jewish baseball player,” he engages in broad reflections on professional identity. He asks whether it is desirable, or even possible, to subordinate merely "personal" aspects of one’s identity—religion, political viewpoints, gender—to the impersonal demands of the professional role. Wrestling with Diversity is a powerful interrogation of the assumptions and contradictions underlying public life in a multicultural world.

Amitai Etzioni argues that societies must find a way to balance individual rights and the common good. This point of balance may change as new technologies develop, the natural and international environments change, and new social forces arise. Some believe the United States may be unduly short-changing individual rights that need to be better protected. Specifically, should the press be granted more protection? Or should its ability to publish state secrets be limited? Should surveillance of Americans and others be curtailed? Should American terrorists be treated differently from others? How one answers these questions, Etzioni shows, invites a larger fundamental question: Where is the proper point of balance between rights and security? Etzioni implements the social philosophy, "liberal communitarianism." Its key assumptions are that neither individual rights nor the common good should be privileged, that both are core values, and that a balance is necessary between them. Etzioni argues that we need to find a new balance between our desire for more goods, services, and affluence, particularly because economic growth may continue to be slow and jobs anemic. The key question is what makes a good life, especially for those whose basic needs are sated.

In its decades-long effort to assure the safety, efficacy, and security of medicines and other products, the Food and Drug Administration has struggled with issues of funding, proper associations with industry, and the balance between consumer choice and consumer protection. Today, these challenges are compounded by the pressures of globalization, the introduction of novel technologies, and fast-evolving threats to public health. With essays by leading scholars and government and private-industry experts, FDA in the Twenty-First Century addresses perennial and new problems and the improvements the agency can make to better serve the public good. The collection features essays on effective regulation in an era of globalization, consumer empowerment, and comparative effectiveness, as well as questions of data transparency, conflicts of interest, industry responsibility, and innovation policy, all with an emphasis on pharmaceuticals. The book also intervenes in the debate over off-label drug marketing and the proper role of the FDA before and after a drug goes on the market. Dealing honestly and thoroughly with the FDA's successes and failures, these essays rethink the structure, function, and future of the agency and the effect policy innovations may have on regulatory institutions abroad.

Can the Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment coexist? Do the regulatory powers of the Federal Communications Commission constitute government censorship, endangering our eroding freedoms by setting up a kind of Big Brother as editor? How should-and how can-a democratic nation properly balance the conflicting rights of a free press, the public right to hear robust, uncensored debate on the airwaves, and the individual's right to be heard?--from dust jacket, inside front cover.

In 1961, when Newton N. Minow was President Kennedy's chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, he astonished the American public with his blunt criticism of television broadcasting as a "vast wasteland". To Mr. Minow today, after decades in communications and public service, and to his colleague Craig L. LaMay, the problem is more urgent than ever, for we all - broadcasters, parents, public officials, and teachers - have abandoned our children to a wasteland of vacuous, often violent, and openly consumerist television programming that represents none of the values we claim to cherish and that threatens our future. The commercial interests dominating television today argue that the Constitution gives them the right to broadcast whatever they wish. But Minow and LaMay persuasively demonstrate that this is a false application of the First Amendment. They remind us that broadcasters are required by law to serve the public interest, and that the Supreme Court and Congress regard service to children as a broadcaster's obligation under law. They argue that the First Amendment can be used on behalf of children, to help make television a force that will nurture and not harm them. They offer many hardheaded, workable ideas for an effective children's television policy (America is alone among the Western democracies in not yet having one) and for new ways to ensure that our children travel safely on the information superhighway.

A fundamental tension in the American political and legal landscape is this: individual liberty v. the common good. When does one trump the other? This ongoing tension becomes particularly problematic when new threats to public health appear, such as HIV or pandemic influenza. Parmet explores this terrain by offering a population-based approach to legal analysis, claiming that law should seek, among other things, to protect and promote public health--something that has been badly neglected, she claims, in legal discourse and biomedical models of disease in our hyper-individualistic society. In the first few chapters she defines public health, establishing its importance to human activity, and lays out the basics of a population-based approach. In subsequent chapters she employs this approach to several issues: constitutional law, health law, tort law, international law and human rights, as well as specific controversial subjects such as obesity--to what degree should law govern the fast food industry?--the use of tobacco, toxic chemicals, global warming, and the emergence of new infections. Along the way she demonstrates how a population-based approach can better help us analyze, for example, the relationship between health and socioeconomic status. The book concludes with Parmet's musings on the future of population-based legal analysis and its central claim: that by recognizing the importance of public health law, and also recognizing the interests of the individual, we can not only better protect the health of communities but also enhance contemporary legal discourse.

What is the legacy of Brown vs. Board of Education? Well known for establishing racial equality as a central commitment of American schools, the case also inspired social movements pursuing equality in education for students across all lines of difference, including language, gender, disability, immigration status, socio-economic status, religion, and sexual orientation. Yet, more than a half-century following Brown, schools, parents and policy makers still debate whether the ruling requires all-inclusive classrooms, and today American schools appear to be more segregated than ever. School choice, once a strategy for avoiding racial integration, has emerged as a method for racial mixing in some school systems, even as magnet and pilot schools, charter schools, and vouchers for private schools enable new forms of self-separation by language, gender, disability, and ethnicity. In In Brown's Wake, Martha Minow examines the way that Brown continues to reverberate over a wide-spectrum of equality issues in public and school choice programs. She argues that the terms placed on such initiatives carry serious consequences for both the character of American education and civil society itself. Though the original promise of Brown remains more symbolic than effective, Minow demonstrates the power of its vision in the struggles for equal education regardless of students' social identity, in the United States and internationally. Further, she urges renewed commitment to the project of social integration even while identifying the complex routes necessary to achieve it. A concise introduction to Brown and its aftermath, In Brown's Wake explores surprising and widespread effects of one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the century with elegance and economy.

Book by

Long with its interrelated companion volume, The Technology, Business, and Economics of Streaming Video, this book examines the next generation of TV--online video. It reviews the elements that lead to online platforms and video clouds and analyzes the software and hardware elements of content creation and interaction, and how these elements lead to different styles of video content. What are the models of this new content? What kind of cultural and societal acceleration can we expect? What are the public implications of the next-generation media system? What problems are arising? What kind of market power is emerging in media industries around the world? And how can one deal with them? The author addresses these questions with facts and figures, ranging across technology, economics, communications studies, business, policy, and law. He reviews the regulatory options, and recommends a new approach for video media. Media professionals in academia, management, technology, policy, and creative production will value the approachable yet thorough information presented in The Content, Impact, and Regulation of Streaming Video. --