<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>IdeasCategory: Case Study &#124; Ideas &#124; TIME.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/case-study/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ideas.time.com</link>
	<description>Essential Insights. Great Debates. Informed Opinions.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 18:45:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='ideas.time.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://ideas.time.com/osd.xml" title="Ideas" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://ideas.time.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Is There a &#8216;Lawyer Bubble&#8217;?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/07/is-there-a-lawyer-bubble/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/07/is-there-a-lawyer-bubble/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 09:45:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Cities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business & Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyer bubble]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steven Harper]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=32119</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new book by a former litigator at Kirkland &#38; Ellis, one of the nation&#8217;s largest law firms, has delivered a frisson to the already rattled legal profession. In The Lawyer Bubble: A Profession in Crisis, Steven J. Harper argues that legal jobs are disappearing not because of short-term economic fluctuations but because of powerful long-term trends. The word bubble is an overstatement — it is hard to believe that the legal profession will end in the sort of high-speed implosion that subprime mortgages did. But the legal profession is facing some fundamental changes, and Harper deserves credit for sounding the alarm. (MORE: Sonia Sotomayor Debate: Should Unhappy Lawyers Blame Themselves?) Harper begins his case with a basic and troubling set of facts: roughly 45,000 law students graduate each year with an average of more than $100,000 in debt — and only about half of them will find long-term, full-time jobs that require a legal degree. Even for graduates who get law jobs, he argues, the legal world is changing fast. Law firms that once prized professionalism and collegiality, he says, are increasingly operating like typical bean-counting businesses. And many law graduates are finding work only as &#8220;contract attorneys,&#8221; which often means doing document-review drudgery for low pay. The decline in the market for lawyers is being driven by an array of forces. For some time now, but particularly since the economic downturn of 2008, corporate clients have been less willing to sign off on hefty legal bills. They have increasingly been balking at the top hourly rates of $1,000 that some partners charge — and at costly expenses, ranging from air travel to sushi dinners to copying charges. And as a result of globalization, an increasing share of American legal work — particularly more by-the-numbers assignments, like document review — is being shipped overseas. Lawyers in India and other lower-wage markets are willing to do the work for a fraction of what American law firms would charge. Taking away even more of this work: newly sophisticated legal software that<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=32119&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/07/is-there-a-lawyer-bubble/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Law</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/law/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/155353638.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/155353638.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/155353638.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Law scales</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Boston Bombing: Should Cameras Now Be Everywhere?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/22/the-boston-bombing-should-cameras-now-be-everywhere/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/22/the-boston-bombing-should-cameras-now-be-everywhere/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:45:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Cities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War & Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bombing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston marathon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dzhokhar Tsarnaev]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tamerlan Tsarnaev]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=31542</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After the death of Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the capture of his brother Dzhokhar, some lawmakers began calling for more public cameras of the sort that were so instrumental in their swift apprehension. Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.,) a member of the House Homeland Security and Intelligence committees, told MSNBC that video cameras in public locations are &#8220;a great law enforcement method&#8221; that &#8220;keeps us ahead of the terrorists who are constantly trying to kill us.&#8221; (MORE: Brother&#8217;s Keeper: Did Older Brother Lure Bombing Suspect into Plot?) It&#8217;s a safe bet that there will be more video cameras coming to cities across the United States. London, which was shaken by a subway bombing on July 7, 2007, now has upwards of one million surveillance cameras. So this is a good time to ask if we should put some limits on the government’s all-seeing eye. The answer should be yes. We should craft our laws to allow images of criminal suspects to be captured in public – but also to make sure that the government does not unduly infringe on the privacy rights of innocent citizens. (MORE: FBI Will Face Questions Over Past Probe of Suspects) The first thing to understand about surveillance video in public places is that there is already a lot of it going on – though it is impossible to know how much. Back in 2006, the New York Civil Liberties Union sent inspectors out to look for street-level surveillance cameras and found nearly 4,500 in Manhattan alone. There are, no doubt, many thousands more today in Manhattan, and countless more in cities and towns and shopping malls across the country. In addition to these government-installed cameras, there are street-facing security cams installed by office complexes, apartment buildings, and retail stores. In the Boston Marathon investigation, law enforcement relied in large part on surveillance video from a Lord &#38; Taylor department store that appeared to show someone dropping off a heavy bag at the bombing site. (Photos taken the old-fashioned way were also important.) (MORE: Bloody Visions: What Would the<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=31542&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/22/the-boston-bombing-should-cameras-now-be-everywhere/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Law</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/law/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/suspects1and2.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/suspects1and2.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/suspects1and2.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">This frame grab from a video released by the FBI on April 18, 2013, shows Tamerlan, front, in black cap, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, in white cap, back right, walking through the crowd before the explosions at the Boston Marathon in Boston, Mass., on April 15, 2013.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Do Human Genes Belong to People or Corporations?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/15/do-human-genes-belong-to-people-or-corporations/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/15/do-human-genes-belong-to-people-or-corporations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health & Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BRCA1]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BRCA2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[genes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Myriad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=31271</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Should corporations be able to patent human genes — parts of the human body that reside in all of us? The Supreme Court is considering that question today, and while it sounds very much hypothetical, it has very real and serious implications. Consider the case of 10-year-old Abigail, who had long QT syndrome, a serious heart disease. There is a genetic test that can detect the disease, but the long QT genes were patented, and for two years the only lab that could legally perform the test was not testing. During those two years, Abigail died. The idea that corporations can patent genes is disturbing and in some cases deadly — but it is the law, at least for now. Today&#8217;s case could produce a landmark ruling that either allows corporations to go further to lock up genes with exclusive patents, or unshackles human genes, allowing doctors and researcher to work more freely in combating deadly diseases. (MORE: Study Identifies Four Genetic Markers for Childhood Obesity) People’s genes can say a great deal about their health. There are genes that reveal an increased likelihood of getting cancer, heart disease or Alzheimer’s. Today’s case focuses on two genes that have genetic mutations that can indicate a higher risk of breast and ovarian cancer. When doctors know that a woman carries these genes — BRCA1 and BRCA2 — they can provide appropriate and often life-saving treatments. Unfortunately for carriers of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene, a Salt Lake City–based company called Myriad Genetics asserts that it has a patent over “isolated” forms of these two genes. That means that Myriad has exclusive control over testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2. That is a too much power to put in one company — and the stakes are high. Medical experts have told the court that Myriad’s patents have led to people being misdiagnosed. One study found that models used by Myriad significantly underestimate the presence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations among Asian-American women. (MORE: Viewpoint: We Need to Rethink Rehab) Gene patents can also<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=31271&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/15/do-human-genes-belong-to-people-or-corporations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Public Health</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/health-science/public-health/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/id_supremecourt_0608.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/id_supremecourt_0608.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/id_supremecourt_0608.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">id_supremecourt_0608</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can North Carolina Declare an &#8220;Official&#8221; Religion?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/08/can-u-s-states-have-official-religions/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/08/can-u-s-states-have-official-religions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:45:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defense of religion act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[north carolina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tennessee school voucher]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=30548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[North Carolina legislators made national headlines last week with a bit of high-profile religious extremism. They introduced a resolution declaring that the state has the right to declare an official religion – presumably Christianity. The bill also contended that states are “sovereign” and that federal courts cannot prevent states “from making laws respecting the establishment of religion.” The North Carolina bill—which appears to be dead for now—was one of two big church-state blow-ups last week. In Tennessee, legislators withdrew a school voucher bill that would have allowed parents to direct taxpayer money to private schools, including Christian academies. The reason they balked: it suddenly occurred to them that the bill would also allow parents to direct tax dollars to Islamic schools. (MORE: Where Are the Most Religious States in America in 2013?) State assaults on the separation of church and state are nothing new. What set the North Carolina bill apart, however, is that it was an aggressive attempt to change the constitutional landscape. It made an argument that conservative lawyers have been developing for some time: that the first amendment’s Establishment Clause does not apply to the states – and that, as a result, states are allowed to favor a particular religion in a way the federal government cannot. North Carolina’s “Rowan County, North Carolina Defense of Religion Act of 2013” came about as a response to a lawsuit by the ACLU. The civil liberties group charged that Rowan County was violating the first amendment by opening 97% of its meetings with Christian prayers. In 2011, a federal court ruled that another North Carolina’s county’s public prayers violated the first amendment. The North Carolina bill would have defended against the suit – and any other lawsuits alleging that the state was promoting a particular religion – in two ways. It would have declared that the Establishment Clause did not apply to the states. And it would have asserted that federal courts have no right to tell states what is and is not constitutional. (WATCH: Your Bill of Rights) The attempt<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=30548&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/08/can-u-s-states-have-official-religions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Religion</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/life-style/religion/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/151167234.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/151167234.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/151167234.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">A woman prays during a public prayer service at the Verizon Wireless Amphetheatre in Charlotte, N.C., Sept. 2, 2012.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Transgender Rights: Coming to a School Near You?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/01/transgender-rights-coming-to-a-school-near-you/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/01/transgender-rights-coming-to-a-school-near-you/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 09:45:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life & Style]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coy Mathis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gender equality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oregon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Portland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transgender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unisex bathrooms]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=30315</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Grant High School in Portland, Oregon has just done something to put itself in the forefront of one of the major civil rights issues of our time. It created six unisex bathrooms. The reason: it wanted to accommodate transgender students who do not feel comfortable in the boys’ and girls’ rooms, including 17-year-old Scott Morrison (who was born male but identifies as female), who said he avoided drinking water in school because using the restroom was so stressful. As gay rights, including same-sex marriage, become increasingly accepted, the civil rights frontline is shifting to transgender people, and increasingly to transgender students. More transgender young people are asking their schools to accommodate their gender identity – and increasingly they have state or local non-discrimination law on their side. (MORE: Bathroom Battle: States Grapple With Transgender Rights) The issue of transgender student rights made national headlines recently with the case of Coy Mathis, a six-year old who was born a boy but identifies as a girl. Her parents filed a discrimination complaint against a Colorado school district that refuses to allow Coy to use the girl’s bathroom. Coy’s age added an extra dimension to the discussion of transgender rights &#8212; even some people who support them are not sure if decisions about gender identity should be made so young. But disputes over transgender rights for young people are showing up with increasing frequency. Connecticut high school senior Calliope Wong entered the fray recently when she protested that Smith College, the prominent Massachusetts all-women’s college, twice returned her application without reading it. Wong, who was born male but identifies as female, submitted a high school transcript and recommendation letters identifying her as female, but she told Reuters that her federal student aide documents list her as male. Wong’s supporters have taken to social media, creating a Facebook group “Trans women belong at Smith College” and a Tumblr page. Smith College is not discussing Wong’s application directly. But in a page on its website addressing “Gender Identity &#38; Expression” the school says that it “expects<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=30315&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/01/transgender-rights-coming-to-a-school-near-you/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Children</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/life-style/children/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/1500-163850703.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/1500-163850703.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/1500-163850703.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Coy Mathis, right, onstage at the 24th Annual GLAAD Media Awards on March 16, 2013 in New York City.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/f9d56bafa8a473464c4701c5f07a6f0d?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">courtneysubramanian</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why the Supreme Court Is Likely to Rule for Gay Marriage</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/25/why-the-supreme-court-is-likely-to-rule-for-gay-marriage/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/25/why-the-supreme-court-is-likely-to-rule-for-gay-marriage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:45:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anthony Kennedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense of Marriage Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gay marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=30074</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court hears arguments tomorrow in two historic cases about whether same-sex couples have the right to marry. It is always difficult to predict Supreme Court rulings, but there is good reason to expect some kind of victory for marriage equality. The main reason: Justice Anthony Kennedy, the man who is likely to cast the deciding vote. The court is considering challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, and Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that bans same-sex marriage in that state. These challenges are historic: though state and federal courts from Alaska to New Jersey have considered same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court has never heard a case about it. (MORE: Why Republicans Are Saying &#8220;I Do&#8221; to Gay Marriage) The Supreme Court is known for its sharp partisan divide. The four-Justice liberal bloc is likely to be sympathetic to gay marriage, while the four-Justice conservative camp is likely to be hostile — though how Chief Justice John Roberts will come out is far from certain. In the middle is the court’s usual swing Justice, Justice Kennedy, who has — surprisingly — been the court’s most steadfast supporter of gay rights. A Reagan appointee, Justice Kennedy is no liberal, as he has shown on issues from affirmative action to corporate campaign spending. But he has repeatedly sided with gay litigants before the court. In 1996, early in the gay-rights legal revolution, he wrote the majority opinion in Romer v. Evans, striking down a Colorado constitutional amendment that prevented localities from passing laws protecting gay people from discrimination. In 2003, he wrote the landmark ruling Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down Texas’ law against gay sex. (MORE: What Will Justice Kennedy Do?) It is not clear why Justice Kennedy — who has not been a particular friend of racial minorities in civil rights cases — has been so sympathetic to gay rights. One factor could be that, as a law professor told the Los Angeles Times, he is a “California Establishment Republican” who has traveled “in circles where<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=30074&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/25/why-the-supreme-court-is-likely-to-rule-for-gay-marriage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Society</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/life-style/society/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ide-marriage-130322-e1363974354389.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ide-marriage-130322-e1363974354389.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ide-marriage-130322-e1363974354389.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">US-SAME-SEX-MARRIAGE</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Just How Bad Off Are Law School Graduates?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/11/just-how-bad-off-are-law-school-graduates/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/11/just-how-bad-off-are-law-school-graduates/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:30:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business & Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[$25 an hour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jobs for law school graduates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal profession]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=29481</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Arizona State University’s law school is attacking head on the growing problem of law school graduates — who are in the fifth year of a near-depression-level job market — not being able to find work. It plans to open its own nonprofit law firm, as the New York Times recently reported, with the goal of keeping 30 recent graduates off the unemployment rolls. Law schools have also been offering public interest fellowships to help recent graduates get a foothold in the legal market — and creating incubators to train solo practitioners. But all of this law-school work-making is raising some fundamental questions about whether there are broader forces at work that are permanently altering the legal profession. It may seem far off today, but it was not long ago that the good times were rolling for lawyers. In 2007, 91.2% of law school graduates got jobs and salaries were soaring. After the 2008 meltdown, the employment rate was far lower — and the quality of jobs a lot worse. In 2009, just 65.4% of law school graduates got jobs for which they needed to pass the bar. (MORE: Sonia Sotomayor Debate: Should Unhappy Lawyers Blame Themselves?) A grim sport has emerged of exchanging stories about just how bad things are. Many lawyers are stuck doing tedious, document-intensive contract work for as little as $25 an hour — not the worst job in the world, certainly, but not what many of them envisioned when they spent three years of their lives and $150,000 to get a law degree. And there are plenty of worse jobs.  “Above the Law,” a website that follows the grim legal market closely, reported one listing on Boston College Law School’s job site that offered an annual salary of just $10,000 which “Above the Law” insisted the firm “had to have known” was “below minimum wage.” And it gets worse still. There are a surprising number of job postings for lawyers that offer no salary at all, including government law jobs. That raises the question — as one headline put it — “Would<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=29481&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/11/just-how-bad-off-are-law-school-graduates/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Case Study</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/case-study/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/wp126314316.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/wp126314316.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/wp126314316.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Law School Column</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Next Gun Control Battle: A Right To Carry Firearms in Public?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/04/the-next-gun-control-battle-a-right-to-carry-firearms-in-public/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/04/the-next-gun-control-battle-a-right-to-carry-firearms-in-public/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2013 12:30:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[concealed weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gun control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[second amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=28909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[With all the battles going on over guns, now there is a new one: whether there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm in public. The Supreme Court has said the Second Amendment guarantees the right to have a gun at home, but it left open whether that right extends to the street. Last month, two powerful federal courts came down on opposite sides of the question. The issue will no doubt eventually land in the Supreme Court – and the stakes will be high. (MORE: If We Want Gun Control, We&#8217;ll Need to Compromise) In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned a lot of accepted wisdom about gun control when it ruled in District Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess a firearm. Until then, it was widely – if not universally – believed that the amendment was about raising “a well-regulated militia” – not about guaranteeing individuals the right to carry a gun. Still, that 2008 ruling was essentially narrow: it struck down a Washington, D.C. law that banned possession of handguns in people’s homes. Heller was a huge victory for the gun-rights movement, but it was unclear how sweeping its impact would be. There has been a flurry of cases working through the legal system trying to see just how far the constitutional right to own a gun goes. Late last month, the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed weapon in public. A man who had been denied a concealed handgun license – because he was not a state resident – sued, insisting his constitutional rights had been violated. He said the denial had left him “completely disarmed” in public. The court rejected the man’s claim. It said that all constitutional rights come with limitations – including the Second Amendment right to be armed. And it said that the Supreme Court in Heller had specifically noted that America has a long tradition of bans on concealed<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=28909&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/04/the-next-gun-control-battle-a-right-to-carry-firearms-in-public/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Case Study</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/case-study/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/wp_94856092.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/wp_94856092.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/wp_94856092.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">District of Columbia v. Heller 2008</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will the Supreme Court Open the Door to Voter Discrimination?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/25/will-the-supreme-court-open-the-door-to-voter-discrimination/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/25/will-the-supreme-court-open-the-door-to-voter-discrimination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:44:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voter discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voter ID]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[votes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=28607</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Our election system is a mess. Voters wait more than seven hours to vote in some places and minority voters wait twice as long on average as whites. In some states, voter ID laws are so tough that elderly nuns are turned away at the polls because they lack drivers’ licenses or other official ID. In another era, the Supreme Court might have stepped up and done something to fix our democracy. But this Supreme Court left the voters standing in the sun for hours and the nuns to fend for themselves. Other than vindicating the right of corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections in 2010&#8242;s Citizens United v. FEC, the court has not had a lot to say about how elections should be run. Now, the Supreme Court appears to be poised to make a major change in American democracy by gutting the Voting Rights Act. The court will hear arguments Wednesday in Shelby County v. Holder, which challenges section 5 of the Act – a key provision that allows the Justice Department to block state election practices that make it difficult for minorities to vote. (PHOTOS: The Halls of Democracy: Places of Civic Responsibility) It is hard to believe the court is really considering striking down section 5. The Voting Rights Act has been a revered part of American law since 1965, when Congress passed it to end the systematic disenfranchisement of blacks in the South. For decades, it enjoyed bipartisan support. The last two laws reauthorizing it were signed by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The Supreme Court has upheld it four times. Section 5 contains the Act’s famous “pre-clearance” requirement. Jurisdictions in all or part of 16 states – most, though not all, in the South – have to “pre-clear” changes in voting procedures with the federal government. The Justice Department must determine that the proposed changes will not deny or abridge the voting rights of minorities. Section 5 protects voters – including, indirectly, white voters – from all sorts of schemes.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=28607&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/25/will-the-supreme-court-open-the-door-to-voter-discrimination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Case Study</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/case-study/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/155655226-copy.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/155655226-copy.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/155655226-copy.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">U.S. Presidential Election Day Voting And Results Coverage</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/3cb61b88047e46fa55ea7dd6bf87ec1c?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timeadmin</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Innocent Men Make False Confessions</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/11/why-innocent-men-make-false-confessions/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/11/why-innocent-men-make-false-confessions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:35:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Central Park Five]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daniel Taylor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[false confessions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Northwestern University]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saul Kassin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West Memphis Three]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West of Memphis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful convictions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=28275</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Correction Appended: Feb. 12, 2013 In 1995, Daniel Taylor was convicted of a double murder in Chicago in what seemed to be a clear-cut case: he gave police a signed confession. But now his supporters — including Northwestern University’s Center on Wrongful Convictions and a Chicago Tribune columnist — are insisting he is innocent. They are asking that Taylor, who is serving life in prison without parole, be freed. They have a compelling argument: there is strong evidence that Taylor was actually in police custody when the 1992 murders took place. He had been picked up on a disorderly conduct charge, it seems, and was being held in a North Side jail — and he was only released on bond two hours after the killings. But what about his confession? Why would an innocent man sign a statement saying he had committed murder? As it turns out, Taylor&#8217;s case is a fairly typical story: a frightened young person manipulated by police into making statements whose significance he did not understand. If the past few years have taught us anything it&#8217;s that false confessions are not only possible, but they also happen more often than anyone would think. (VIDEO: Barry Scheck, Justice Seeker) False confessions play a major role in two recent documentaries about wrongful convictions. West of Memphis examines the case of three young Arkansas men who were locked up for the horrific 1993 murders of three 8-year-old boys. Perhaps the most powerful piece of the prosecution’s case was a confession by Jessie Misskelley describing in graphic detail how he and his two co-defendants beat, raped and mutilated the boys. The documentary, however, showed how the police could — after hours of intense interrogation, heavy with leading questions — manipulate and extract a false story from Misskelley, an unsophisticated young man with a low IQ. The Central Park Five explores the notorious 1989 case in which five black and Hispanic teenagers were convicted of raping and beating a 28-year-old white jogger in Central Park. The men were found guilty of what New<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=28275&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/11/why-innocent-men-make-false-confessions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Case Study</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/case-study/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/confession.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/confession.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/confession.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Central Park Five</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will &#8216;Stalking Apps&#8217; Be Stopped?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/04/will-stalking-apps-be-stopped/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/04/will-stalking-apps-be-stopped/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2013 12:30:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business & Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gadgets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Franken]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GPS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[locational privacy protection act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nissan Leaf]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[smart phone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stalking app]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=28107</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last year, owners of the Leaf, Nissan&#8217;s hot new electric car, got an unfortunate surprise along with their phenomenal 99 miles per gallon: a sharp-eyed security blogger revealed that Leafs secretly reported their owners&#8217; location, speed and direction to websites that other users could then access through a built-in RSS reader. Nissan did not warn customers that this information was being passed on to various third parties without their consent. Leaf owners are hardly alone. In the past few years, there have been reports that iPhones and Android smart phones have been secretly sending Apple and Google information on users’ whereabouts. (VIEWPOINT: The Government Would Like to Keep Reading Your E-Mail) Locational privacy is the next frontier in the privacy wars. More than 110 million Americans have smart phones, and millions more have GPS devices and other high-tech gadgets that keep track of where they are. Companies are eager to know our whereabouts in order to serve up location-based ads and services — you&#8217;re taking a business trip, and all of a sudden you&#8217;re getting offers online from local restaurants. And app makers are selling apps like the now infamous Girls Around Me that allow people to follow other people. The trouble is, a lot of us do not want big corporations — or the government or strangers — knowing our comings and goings. Minnesota Democratic Senator Al Franken has drafted a bill that would require companies to get customers’ consent before collecting data on their location or sharing it with nongovernmental third parties. The act has solid bipartisan support. That is not surprising for a piece of legislation informally known as the Stalking Apps Bill. But industry may yet succeed in blocking it. (MORE: Are We Guilty of Oversharenting? Why We Owe Our Kids Online Privacy) To put it simply, privacy law in the U.S. is a mess. We do not have any major, overarching federal protections; instead, there are a few laws that focus on discrete issues (health care privacy, privacy for children) or specific situations. For example,<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=28107&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/04/will-stalking-apps-be-stopped/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Internet</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/business-tech/internet/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/154511437.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/154511437.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/154511437.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Man on phone in window</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will States Lead the Way to Legalizing Marijuana Nationwide?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/28/will-states-lead-the-way-to-legalizing-marijuana-nationwide/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/28/will-states-lead-the-way-to-legalizing-marijuana-nationwide/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:45:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health & Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medicine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DEA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legalizing pot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marijuana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical marijuana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pot]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=27792</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When citizens of Colorado and Washington voted in November to legalize marijuana, they created a conflict, because pot remains illegal under federal law and anyone who lights up is committing a federal crime and could theoretically still be arrested for it. After Colorado passed its referendum, Governor John Hickenlooper said the implementation of the law in his state would be a “complicated process” and warned residents not to “break out the Cheetos or Goldfish too quickly.” While it seems unlikely that the federal government will make much of an effort to arrest pot users in Colorado or Washington — President Obama has said he has &#8220;bigger fish to fry&#8221; — the tension between federal and state laws on marijuana remains. Just last week, an appeals court rejected a suit that sought to lower the drug classification of medical marijuana under federal drug laws. That court ruling threw the issue back to Congress and the Drug Enforcement Agency, which should start a serious reconsideration of national policy toward marijuana. The federal government should start by reclassifying medical marijuana, legalizing it outright or at least dialing down the penalties. And it should begin to have the sort of serious discussion about legalizing recreational marijuana use that is now occurring in the states. (MORE: U.S. Marjuana Laws Ricochet Through Latin America) The campaign to legalize marijuana has long been viewed as a fringe cause backed by young people and old hippies. That perception has lingered even though public-opinion polls have shown that a growing percentage of the public favors legalization — as much as 68% in one recent poll. In the past two decades, supporters of marijuana have focused on legalizing medical use, and they have had impressive success. Today, 18 states and the District of Columbia have made medical use legal, and at least seven more states are considering it. Meanwhile, the DEA, under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, still classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug — a classification for drugs that have no accepted medical use. Americans for Safe Access,<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=27792&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/28/will-states-lead-the-way-to-legalizing-marijuana-nationwide/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Medicine</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/health-science/medicine/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/id-marijuana-0128.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/id-marijuana-0128.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/id-marijuana-0128.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Marijuana plants are displayed for sale at Canna Pi medical marijuana dispensary in Seattle, Nov. 27, 2012.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Was Aaron Swartz Really &#8216;Killed by the Government&#8217;?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/18/was-aaron-swartz-really-killed-by-the-government/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/18/was-aaron-swartz-really-killed-by-the-government/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:45:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business & Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aaron swartz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aaron's law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carmen ortiz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[darrell issa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[felony charges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawrence lessig]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plea bargain]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=27539</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At the funeral of Aaron Swartz, the 26-year-old Internet freedom crusader, Swartz’s father had a blunt message. Aaron — who committed suicide last week while being prosecuted for hacking — “was killed by the government,” he declared. The elder Swartz fanned the flames of a growing debate: Did federal prosecutors go too far in pursuing Swartz on serious felony charges, and are they in part responsible for his death? (MORE: Aaron Swartz, Tech Prodigy and Internet Activist, Is Dead at 26) Swartz, a computer prodigy, helped create Reddit but was perhaps best known as a freedom-of-information activist. In addition to campaigning against overly punitive copyright laws, he allegedly linked his laptop to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s computer system to download millions of articles from JSTOR, a paid-subscription database of academic articles. (MIT was a subscriber to JSTOR, but Swartz was not an authorized user.) Federal prosecutors in Boston charged Swartz with 13 felony counts that could have sent him to prison for more than 30 years. Since Swartz’s death — he was found hanged in his home in Brooklyn — his family, friends and allies in the information-freedom movement have put much of the blame on federal prosecutors. Swartz’s family said in a statement on an online memorial site that his death is “the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach.” In particular, they charge that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Massachusetts contributed to Swartz’s death by choosing to pursue “a harsh array of charges &#8230; to punish an alleged crime that had no victims.” (MORE: Aaron Swartz&#8217;s Suicide Prompts MIT Soul-Searching) U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz pushed back Wednesday, saying that her prosecutors have a duty of “protecting the use of computers and the Internet” and that they had never intended to see the maximum sentence of 30 years given. In fact, they had offered Swartz a plea-bargain deal that would have put him in prison for only a few months — a deal he had rejected. In a blog post titled “Prosecutor as Bully,”<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=27539&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/18/was-aaron-swartz-really-killed-by-the-government/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Law</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/law/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ide-aaron-swartz-0117.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ide-aaron-swartz-0117.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ide-aaron-swartz-0117.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">image: Aaron Swartz in Miami, Jan. 30, 2009.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will Self-Driving Cars Change the Rules of the Road?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/14/will-self-driving-cars-change-the-rules-of-the-road/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/14/will-self-driving-cars-change-the-rules-of-the-road/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:43:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self-driving cars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sergey Brin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[traffic accidents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[traffic laws]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=27377</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Not long ago, self-driving cars seemed like science fiction. But Google is now operating so-called autonomous cars in California and Nevada, and last week at the annual Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Toyota and Audi unveiled prototypes for self-driving cars to sell to ordinary car buyers. (Google co-founder Sergey Brin said last year he expects his company to have them ready for the general public within five years.) In a report backing self-driving cars, the consulting firm KPMG and the Center for Automotive Research recently predicted that driving is “on the brink of a new technological revolution.” (MORE: Self-Driving Cars Available by 2019, Report Says) But as the momentum for self-driving cars grows, one question is getting little attention: Should they even be legal? And if they are, how will the laws of driving have to adapt? All our rules about driving — from who pays for a speeding ticket to who is liable for a crash — are based on having a human behind the wheel. That is going to have to change. There are some compelling reasons to support self-driving cars. Regular cars are inefficient: the average commuter spends 250 hours a year behind the wheel. They are dangerous. Car crashes are a leading cause of death for Americans ages 4 to 34 and cost some $300 billion a year. Google and other supporters believe that self-driving cars can make driving more efficient and safer by eliminating distracted driving and other human error. Google&#8217;s self-driving cars have cameras on the top to look around them and computers to do the driving. Their safety record is impressive so far. In the first 300,000 miles, Google reported that its cars had not had a single accident. Last August, one got into a minor fender bender, but Google said it occurred while someone was manually driving it. After heavy lobbying and campaign contributions, Google persuaded California and Nevada to enact laws legalizing self-driving cars. The California law breezed through the state legislature — it passed 37-0 in the senate and 74-2 in the assembly —<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=27377&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/14/will-self-driving-cars-change-the-rules-of-the-road/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Case Study</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/case-study/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/cars.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/cars.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/cars.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Image: Google&#039;s self-driving car</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Online Reviewers Beware: You Can Get Sued</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/07/yelp-reviewers-beware-you-can-get-sued/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/07/yelp-reviewers-beware-you-can-get-sued/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 10:40:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Angie's List]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christopher Dietz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jane Perez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[yelp]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=27174</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jane Perez, a retired captain in the military from Fairfax County, VA, was not happy with her home contractor, so she wrote reviews on Yelp and Angie’s List explaining why. She said he had done a poor job on her renovations and billed her for work he did not perform — and that he may have stolen her jewelry. She warned readers: “Bottom line: do not put yourself through this nightmare of a contractor.” The contractor, Christopher Dietz, filed a $750,000 defamation suit and got a judge to order Perez to rewrite the reviews. The Virginia Supreme Court recently reversed that decision, saying that reviews should not be censored — and that if they were defamatory, Dietz should focus on getting money damages. The ruling is being hailed as an important victory for freedom of speech on the Internet, which it is. But it is also a reminder of the risks that come with being an online critic. Sites like Yelp! and Amazon give ordinary people the power to write reviews that have a major impact on other people’s reputations and livelihoods. But it also means that they can be held legally responsible if what they write is defamatory. (MORE: Is Yelp Really for Morons?) Before the Internet, critique of any kind was mainly the perview of journalists. Editors, and sometimes lawyers, reviewed them for fairness and accuracy. Non-journalists who wanted to complain about businesses or other people could express their views by word of mouth, but it was difficult for them to reach a mass audience or to do much damage. Now, of course, everyone is a critic—entire businesses have been built upon the crowdsourced opinion of the masses. There is money to be made—and lost, as bad reviews can have a major impact on a company’s bottom line. Dietz claims that Perez’s reviews cost him a substantial amount of lost business, along with “insult, mental suffering, being placed in fear” and “anxiety,” and harm to his reputation. In his suit, he charged that Perez’s reviews were false. He insists he<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=27174&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/07/yelp-reviewers-beware-you-can-get-sued/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Case Study</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/case-study/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/1500_140245452.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/1500_140245452.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/1500_140245452.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">image: The Yelp Inc. logo is displayed in the window of a restaurant in New York, U.S., on March 1, 2012.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Viewpoint: The Government Would Like to Keep Reading Your E-Mail</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/02/the-government-would-like-to-keep-reading-your-email/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/02/the-government-would-like-to-keep-reading-your-email/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2013 10:45:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business & Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Electronic Communication Privacy Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[email]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netflix amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paula Broadwell]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=27053</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The scandal that brought down General David Petraeus last fall contained a miniscandal within it: just how easy it is for the FBI to read people’s e-mail. If Petraeus and his biographer Paula Broadwell had communicated about their extramarital affair solely by telephone, their exchanges might have remained secret. But e-mail does not get the kind of legal protection from government snooping that phone calls and regular mail do. There have long been calls on Congress to upgrade e-mail privacy, but it has not done so — and recently, it let us down once again. This failure to act is not the usual Washington inertia or gridlock. It is because there are a lot of people in government who like the idea of being able to read citizens’ private e-mail. And Internet users — who have gotten good at pushing back against Facebook over privacy issues — have not been putting pressure on Congress to strengthen e-mail privacy. (LIST: Top 10 Scandals of 2012) The Electronic Communication Privacy Act — the main law governing e-mail privacy — was enacted in 1986, when no one had any idea how important e-mail would become or how it would be used. The ECPA requires the government to obtain a search warrant to read e-mail — just like regular mail — but the FBI’s position is that it does not need a warrant once you have opened your e-mail. That means in much of the country — some federal courts have said no — all the FBI needs to do in order to read your e-mail is, essentially, ask Google or Yahoo nicely (and issue an easy-to-do subpoena). Last fall, when Congress got to work on rolling back privacy protections for online videos — something Netflix wanted badly — the original bill contained a provision requiring the FBI to get a search warrant before reading people&#8217;s e-mail. But in late December, Congress passed the “Netflix amendment,” which did not include the e-mail-privacy provision. Make no mistake: the protections did not get lost in the shuffle.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=27053&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/02/the-government-would-like-to-keep-reading-your-email/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Case Study</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/case-study/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/126277873.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/126277873.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/126277873.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">image: email</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Is Congress Protecting the Gun Industry?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/24/why-is-congress-protecting-the-gun-industry/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/24/why-is-congress-protecting-the-gun-industry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:45:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gun control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gun industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=26865</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Daniel Williams, a 16-year-old high school basketball star, was shot and badly injured while practicing outside of his home in Buffalo, N.Y. In October, a New York appeals court did something fairly remarkable. It let Williams proceed with a lawsuit against the maker and seller of the gun that that was used to shoot him. Letting a lawsuit go forward may not sound like a big deal, but Congress enacted a law in 2005 — under heavy lobbying from the NRA and the gun industry — that gives gun manufacturers and dealers broad immunity from being sued. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) shields the gun industry even when it makes guns that are unnecessarily dangerous and sells them recklessly. (MORE: A Sportsman&#8217;s View: We Need a Moderate Alternative to the NRA) Since the Sandy Hook Elementary School killings, there have been widespread calls for Congress to pass gun control laws — and it should. But there has been less talk about another important tool that could be used to reduce gun violence: lawsuits against the gun industry. Some of these suits can succeed despite the PLCAA — as the Daniel Williams case shows — and we need more of them to be filed. But if Congress wants to get serious about gun violence, it should repeal the PLCAA. Civil lawsuits do two important things: they compensate people who are injured by the bad acts of others and they penalize people and companies for bad behavior. If a company knows it may have to pay a large amount of money if it poses an unreasonable threat to others, it will have a strong incentive to act better. Lawsuits prod companies to make their products safer. Years ago, lawsuits over the Ford Pinto’s fuel tank fires led Ford to recall the troubled car and improve the design. Since then, all sorts of consumer products — from aboveground swimming pools to children’s pajamas — have been made safer by litigation or the threat of litigation. (MORE: Cohen: If We Want<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=26865&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/24/why-is-congress-protecting-the-gun-industry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Case Study</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/case-study/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/guns.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/guns.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/guns.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">IMAGE: Guns line Wade&#039;s Gun Shop in Bellevue, Wash.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Viewpoint: If We Want Gun Control, We&#8217;ll Need to Compromise</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/17/viewpoint-if-we-want-gun-control-well-need-to-compromise/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/17/viewpoint-if-we-want-gun-control-well-need-to-compromise/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:15:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assault weapons ban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[background checks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chuck Schumer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gun control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newtown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sandy hook shooting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=26562</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the wake of the heartbreaking mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, supporters of gun control have argued that the attack should be a turning point in galvanizing popular opinion against guns — and producing strong gun-control legislation. President Obama declared Saturday that “we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action” — though he did not provide details. Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, said that when Congress returns she will introduce a bill to restore the assault-weapons ban. Senator Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said on Face the Nation on Sunday that “we could be at a tipping point” on gun-control legislation. (MORE: Sandy Hook Shooting: Why Did Lanza Target a School?) If any crime could usher in a new gun-control regime, last week’s slaughter of 20 6- and 7-year-olds should. But will it? Not likely. The same &#8220;tipping points&#8221; have presented themselves after previous mass shootings, but little progress has been made. Instead of continuing to act as if the nation is poised to reject guns, advocates for gun control should switch tactics. They should accept the reality that support for guns remains strong and work for a bipartisan “grand compromise” that offers gun owners substantive benefits in exchange for reasonable gun restrictions. The U.S. has been confronted with a lot of horrific gun violence in recent years: the 32 killed at Virginia Tech in 2007; the 13 killed at Texas&#8217; Fort Hood in 2009; the attack last year on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords that left six people dead, including a federal judge; the 12 people killed in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater this year. But as mass shootings have become more frequent and more deadly, popular opinion has been moving steadily in favor of greater gun rights. In 1993, a Pew Research Center poll found that support for gun control overpowered support for gun rights by 57% to 34%. By this year, the margin had fallen to 47% to 46%. This support for guns is not just abstract: the FBI has logged a record 16.8 million background<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=26562&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/17/viewpoint-if-we-want-gun-control-well-need-to-compromise/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Case Study</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/case-study/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/2012-12-16t193016z_17604337.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/2012-12-16t193016z_17604337.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/2012-12-16t193016z_17604337.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">image: Twenty-seven wooden angel figures are seen placed in a wooded area beside a road near the Sandy Hook Elementary School for the victims of a school shooting in Newtown, Conn., Dec. 16, 2012.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Viewpoint: Gift Cards Need Stronger Regulation</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/10/why-gift-cards-need-stronger-regulation/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/10/why-gift-cards-need-stronger-regulation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:15:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business & Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life & Style]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christmas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gift cards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gift certificates]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=26278</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you buy a Chase gift card for a friend or relative or employee, you may notice that it comes with snowflakes or bubbles or one of the other decorative choices the bank offers. One thing you may not notice is that it also comes with an “inactivity fee” which kicks in after twelve months and starts removing $2.50 in value from the card every month. For slow-to-spend shoppers, that works out to a $30-a-year fee for letting Chase hold onto your money. Gift cards are expected to be the #1 gift this holiday season. More than 80 percent of shoppers will buy at least one this year, according to a recent retailer-backed study – and they will spend an average of $156.86 per card. Many cards come from traditional retailers like L.L. Bean and Dell, which are both also using gift cards as an inducement to buy other gift cards— so-called promotional cards. Some givers, knowing neither what their aunt or nephew might want nor where they would want to shop, will turn to bank gift cards like the one from Chase. (MORE: Don&#8217;t Give Hidden Fees This Holiday Season) But while gift cards are an easy fix that seem more festive and considerate than simply handing over a wad of cash, they often come with lumps of coal in the fine print, which is why many feel they should be more stringently regulated. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Ct.) has introduced a bill in Congress that would ban gift cards from imposing non-use fees or expiration dates altogether, which would strengthen a 2009 law that prohibits cards from expiring within five years or imposing no-use fees in the first year. ConsumerReports.org, which backs the bill, says it “would be the ultimate gift for those who give and those who receive.” But banks and retailers will no doubt fight it hard – because these gift card technicalities add a lot of money to their bottom lines. Unlike the 2009 law, the new bill would also apply to promotional gift cards, which are notorious for<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=26278&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/10/why-gift-cards-need-stronger-regulation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Case Study</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/case-study/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/gift-cards.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/gift-cards.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/gift-cards.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Gift cards from various retailers are seen on display at a Chevron service station convenience store Dec. 19, 2006 in San Francisco, Calif.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Viewpoint: Barring Women from Combat Is Unconstitutional</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/03/banning-women-from-comat-makes-no-sens/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/03/banning-women-from-comat-makes-no-sens/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:45:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[combat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawsuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=25940</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When Major Mary Jennings Hegar was serving as a captain in Afghanistan, her aircraft was shot down by enemy fire while she and her crew were evacuating injured soldiers. Though injured by a bullet that penetrated the helicopter, she completed the rescue mission while under fire on the ground — and received the Purple Heart and the Distinguished Flying Cross for “outstanding heroism and selfless devotion to duty.” One thing Hegar, who has served three tours in Afghanistan, did not do: get credit for serving in combat. It is illegal for women to be in official combat positions — and to get the benefits that come with them. Hegar and three other servicewomen filed a lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco on Nov. 27 in a long-overdue challenge to the Pentagon’s nonsensical and unconstitutional ban. (MORE: Petraeus Scandal: Are We Guilty of a Double Standard?) Women have always served in the military (and lost their lives), but Congress and the Pentagon have put an array of restrictions on them. In 1988 the military adopted the “risk rule,” which allowed women to be kept out of even noncombat positions if they were likely to be at risk of being fired on or captured. In 1994 it dropped that rule, but then Secretary of Defense Les Aspin adopted the ban on placing women in official ground combat positions, after a poll showed weak public support for allowing women to volunteer for combat. Many military women — who constitute 14% of the 1.4 million active members of the military — object to the policy because it blocks them from applying for some 238,000 jobs and excludes them from certain promotions. It is particularly unfair because it doesn&#8217;t protect women in service. Fully 85% of women who have served since Sept. 11 report having served in a combat zone or an area where they received combat or imminent-danger pay, according to the lawsuit, and half reported being involved in combat operations. At least 860 female troops have been wounded and 144 killed in the Iraq<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=25940&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/03/banning-women-from-comat-makes-no-sens/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Case Study</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/case-study/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/146375691.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/146375691.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/146375691.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">A USN Hospital Corspman assigned to the Female Engagement Team from 1st Battalion 7th Marines Regiment works out at Forward Operating Base Jackson on June 15, 2012.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
