Harvey Milk name erased from Navy ship during Pride Month
The decision, which critics called politically motivated and timed to Pride Month, marks a stark reversal in the Navy's recent approach to commemorating civil rights leaders.
The fleet oiler, formerly known as the USNS Harvey Milk, will now bear the name of Oscar V. Peterson, a Medal of Honor recipient who died saving his ship, the USS Neosho, during a 1942 Japanese attack.
'We are taking the politics out of ship naming,' Hegseth said in a video posted to X. 'People want to be proud of the ship they're sailing in.'
I am pleased to announce that the United States Navy is renaming the USNS Harvey Milk to the USNS Oscar V. Peterson.
We are taking the politics out of ship naming. pic.twitter.com/2ypwAQGdAl
— Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (@SecDef) June 27, 2025
The ship was christened in 2021 under a policy from the Obama-era Navy Secretary Ray Mabus to name oilers after civil and human rights champions.
Milk, a Navy veteran who was forced to accept an 'other than honorable' discharge due to his sexuality, later became one of the first openly gay elected officials in the U.S. before his assassination in 1978.
An internal Navy memo revealed that the renaming aligns with President Donald Trump's and Hegseth's goals to 're-establish the warrior culture.'
The timing — days after WorldPride celebrations in Washington, D.C. — has drawn intense backlash.
'The removal of Harvey Milk's name from a naval vessel — during Pride Month, no less — is absolutely shameful,' state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, said in a statement when the news of the name change first emerged this month. 'Brave LGBTQ veterans worked for years to achieve the naming of a ship for Harvey. Now Trump and Hegseth are wiping it away due to straight-up bigotry.'
The USNS Harvey Milk is one of 17 vessels built to honor civil rights heroes, including civil rights activist Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga.; Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy; women's rights activist Lucy Stone and abolitionist Sojourner Truth.
'Donald Trump's assault on veterans has hit a new low.' California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted on social media this month. 'Harvey Milk wasn't just a civil rights icon — he was a Korean War combat veteran whose commander called him 'outstanding.' Stripping his name from a Navy ship won't erase his legacy as an American icon, but it does reveal Trump's contempt for the very values our veterans fight to protect.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Dollar Falls as Trump Calls for Fed Governor Cook to Resign
The dollar index (DXY00) today is down by -0.12%. The dollar fell from a 1-week high today and turned lower on political risks and concerns about Fed independence after President Trump called for Fed Governor Lisa Cook to resign amid a probe into two personal mortgages. FHFA Director Pulte wrote a letter to Attorney General Bondi suggesting Ms. Cook may have committed a criminal offense by allegedly falsifying bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms. The dollar initially moved higher today after EUR/USD fell to a 1-week low when ECB President Lagarde said she sees slower growth in the Eurozone. The weakness in stocks today has also boosted some liquidity demand for the dollar. In addition, the dollar has support due to speculation that last week's stronger-than-expected July PPI report could keep the Fed from cutting interest rates at next month's FOMC meeting, as expectations for a -25 bp Fed rate cut in September fell to 84% area from 93% before the report. More News from Barchart Dollar Recovers as Stocks Falter Signs of Peace Progress in Ukraine Boosts the Euro and Weighs on the Dollar What Will Powell Reveal About Interest Rate Cuts on August 22? And How Will Markets React? Get exclusive insights with the FREE Barchart Brief newsletter. Subscribe now for quick, incisive midday market analysis you won't find anywhere else. Federal funds futures prices are discounting the chances for a -25 bp rate cut at 84% at the September 16-17 FOMC meeting and at 55% for a second -25 bp rate cut at the following meeting on October 28-29. EUR/USD (^EURUSD) today is up by +0.09%. The euro recovered from a 1-week low today and turned higher after the dollar retreated when President Trump said Fed Governor Lisa Cook "must resign" now due to allegations of mortgage fraud. The euro initially moved lower today on comments from ECB President Lagarde, who said the Eurozone economy is likely to see slower growth this quarter, with questions over global trade remaining despite recent trade deals with the US reducing uncertainty. President Trump is pushing for a summit between Presidents Putin and Zelenskiy soon, and European leaders are discussing a plan to send British and French troops to Ukraine as part of a peace agreement. The outcome could have macroeconomic implications regarding tariffs and oil prices, and could, of course, have significant consequences for European security. Swaps are pricing in a 7% chance of a -25 bp rate cut by the ECB at the September 11 policy meeting. USD/JPY (^USDJPY) today is down by -0.35%. The yen is climbing today due to weakness in the dollar. Also, higher Japanese government bond yields have strengthened the yen's interest rate differentials and boosted the yen after the 10-year JGB bond yield rose to a 16-year high today of 1.621%. In addition, lower T-note yields on Tuesday were supportive of the yen. Today's Japanese economic news was mixed for the yen as Jun core machine orders unexpectedly increased, but July exports posted their largest decline in almost 4.5 years. Japanese trade news was mixed as Jul exports fell -2.6% y/y, weaker than expectations of -2.1% y/y and the largest decline in almost 4.5 years. However, Jul imports fell -7.5% y/y, a smaller decline than expectations of -10.0% y/y. Japan Jun core machine orders unexpectedly rose +3.0% m/m, stronger than expectations of a decline of -0.5% m/m. December gold (GCZ25) today is up +27.30 (+0.81%), and September silver (SIU25) is up +0.378 (+1.01%). Precious metal prices recovered from early losses today and moved higher due to a weaker dollar and lower T-note yields. Also, an increase in US political uncertainty and concerns about Fed independence has boosted safe-haven demand for precious metals after President Trump called for Fed Governor Lisa Cook to resign amid allegations of mortgage fraud. Gold continues to have safe-haven support related to US tariffs and geopolitical risks, including the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. Fund buying of precious metals continues to support prices after gold holdings in ETFs rose to a 2-year high last Friday, and silver holdings in ETFs reached a 3-year high on Tuesday. Precious metals initially moved lower today as signs of progress in peace talks over Ukraine have curbed some safe-haven demand. Also, today's hawkish UK July CPI report may keep the BOE from cutting interest rates and is bearish for precious metals. Silver prices were undercut today due to concerns over industrial metal demand after ECB President Lagarde said the Eurozone economy is likely to see slower growth this quarter. UK Jul CPI rose +3.8% y/y, stronger than expectations of +3.7% y/y and the fastest pace of increase in 1.5 years. Jul core CPI also rose +3.8% y/y, stronger than expectations of +3.7% y/y. On the date of publication, Rich Asplund did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on
Atlantic
5 hours ago
- Atlantic
‘America First' Does Not Mean ‘America Everywhere'
In the summer of 1930, the U.S. secretaries of war and the Navy developed War Plan Red, a 94-page document laying out detailed plans to strangle the naval and trade capabilities of the United Kingdom in a hypothetical future that involved the U.S. and U.K. at war with each other. The centerpiece was a full-scale land invasion of Canada, a seaborne attack on Halifax, a blockade of the Panama Canal, the capture of British possessions throughout the Caribbean and the Bahamas and Bermuda, and a direct challenge of the Royal Navy by U.S. naval forces in the Atlantic. Far from the sepia-tinted account of transatlantic relations that is so often evoked today, the union between the English-speaking nations that emerged after the First World War was neither fulsome nor uncritical. Rather, the experiences of the war provoked deep antipathy and suspicion among American decision makers toward the British empire. And the plans, though never approved by Congress or the president, were not merely theoretical—the U.S. built air bases, camouflaged as civilian airfields, along the Canadian border. Only after the threat of Nazism emerged in the mid-1930s was War Plan Red quietly shelved. It was not declassified until the 1970s. War Plan Red's existence is a useful reminder that so much of what people assume to be the granite-like permanence of the postwar transatlantic community—forged by the horrors of the Second World War and the exigencies of the Cold War—is in fact more recent and, as we are now discovering, more fragile. The misty-eyed nostalgia for a yesteryear of American and European unity has always been based on sentiment as much as reality. From President Dwight Eisenhower's threat to crash the British pound during the Suez Crisis of 1956 to America's opposition to French attempts to maintain control in Vietnam and Algeria, the decline of European power while the U.S. emerged as the undisputed hegemon was marked by naked rivalry as much as it was by the amity of 'the West.' So Donald Trump is drawing, however unwittingly, on historical precedent when he brandishes his own imperial designs on Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal. When he expresses his suspicions about Europe—the European Union, according to Trump, 'was formed in order to screw the United States'—he does so too. The NATO Summit earlier this summer—an 'orchestrated grovel at the feet of Donald Trump,' as the British journalist Martin Kettle put it—demonstrated how unbalanced the relationship has become. More recently, the Alaska summit at which Trump gave Russian President Vladimir Putin the red-carpet treatment only underscored the point. They discussed Putin's invasion in the heart of Europe without a single European leader present. European leaders got what looked instead like a school photo in the White House alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky—a row of school pupils holding hands to confront an overbearing headmaster. Perhaps the past 80 years of American transatlantic leadership—which established one of the greatest security alliances in history and built a democratic bulwark against the threat of Soviet Communism—will turn out to be the exception, not the rule. Anyone listening attentively to J. D. Vance's broadsides earlier this year at the Munich Security Conference and the AI Action Summit in Paris will have noticed a new mix of menace and petulance from the U.S. government. In addition to delivering a familiar critique of Europe's sluggish and overregulated economy, the speeches signaled a willingness to use American power—and European dependency on that power—to interfere in Europe's internal democratic politics: 'The threat that I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia; it's not China; it's not any other external actor,' Vance said in Munich. 'What I worry about is the threat from within.' After Vance endorsed Germany's far-right AfD party and met its leader in the run-up to the German election, Chancellor Friedrich Merz did not mince his words: 'The interventions from Washington were no less dramatic and drastic and ultimately outrageous than the interventions we have seen from Moscow.' From the July 2025 Issue: The talented Mr. Vance At a rally in Poland days before the presidential election there, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem seemed to suggest that the U.S. would continue to support Poland only if Trump's preferred candidate—the conservative historian Karol Nawrocki—were to win: 'He needs to be the next president of Poland. Do you understand me?' Noem said, adding that if Nawrocki was elected, Poland 'will continue to have a U.S. presence here, a military presence.' (Nawrocki did win, and was inaugurated earlier this month.) All of this makes the Trump-Vance agenda very clear. Far from espousing an isolationist 'America First' doctrine, when it comes to Europe, the Trump administration is seeking to enforce a doctrine of 'America Everywhere,' in which political parties that share the same nativist outlook are actively supported by Washington, and those who do not are ceaselessly criticized. Like so many Europeans of my generation, I am a product of transatlanticism. My father was one of the lucky few children to be moved to safety in the United States during the height of the Nazi bombardment of London; my Dutch mother was released from a Japanese-run prisoner-of-war camp in Indonesia following the U.S. victory over Japan. I studied as a post graduate at the University of Minnesota, and did a stint as a fact-checker at The Nation magazine in the early 1990s. Later, as an EU trade negotiator and member of the European Parliament, I was part of an effort, working with successive U.S. administrations, to build a rules-based global trading system. As Britain's deputy prime minister from 2010 to 2015, I worked with the Obama administration on an array of shared endeavors, including counterterrorist operations and commercial agreements. And recently I spent seven years as a senior executive at Meta, on the front line of the technological revolution—and blazing controversies—emanating from Silicon Valley. In short, a world in which Europe and America don't walk tall and in tandem with each other, even when they disagree, is hard for me to contemplate. I fervently believe that the world is safer, stronger, and wealthier because of this unique relationship. But now is the time to imagine the previously unimaginable: a world in which deep-rooted transatlanticism gives way to shallow transactionalism. Part of what is pulling the relationship apart is, ironically, the demonstrable nature of America's supremacy over Europe, a supremacy delivered in no small part by the statecraft of previous U.S. administrations: an open trading system built on the undisputed role of the dollar as a global reserve currency; the deployment of overwhelming defense and security capabilities; the gravitational pull of a world-leading university system (despite, for now at least, the current administration's attack on American academe); and economic prowess built on American domination of both international finance and technology. The U.S. has, on all of these benchmarks, comprehensively pulled ahead of Europe. When I served as deputy prime minister, the GDPs of Europe and the U.S. were roughly the same; today, the U.S. GDP is almost one and a half times larger. No wonder some Silicon Valley investors now talk of Europe as a 'dead' place—an adjective I've heard in various conversations—as if a continent of 500 million people and centuries of scientific and cultural discovery can be dismissed as little more than a hemispheric museum. In many ways, the tech elite is merely repeating the mockery directed at supposed European decadence by generations of American commentators (H. L. Mencken's caustic assertion that 'There are two kinds of Europeans: the smart ones, and those who stayed behind' comes to mind). Of course, their scorn has been fully matched by a long tradition of European snobbery toward supposedly uncouth Americans. Michael Scherer: Trump says he decides what 'America first' means Yet the divisions seem starker now. Rather than gentle ribbing between Old World and new, or specific disagreements between otherwise aligned allies, they are increasingly framed in zero-sum terms. A new class of American nationalists frets about the end of Western civilization, advancing a blood-and-soil ideology that elevates faith, family, and fealty to the nation over democratic ideals. Rather than seeking cooperation between political systems regardless of who is in power, they seek to elevate their ideological bedfellows at the expense of everyone else. It is the subjugation of diplomacy to virulent partisanship, egged on by outriders in business and politics who smell opportunity and personal advancement in populism. A persistent theme in the U.S.'s critique of Europe has to do with America's culture of free speech, derived from the First Amendment. A standard trope among the MAGA faithful is that Europe is a continent cowed by censorship. But this argument reeks of double standards: In Trump's America, saying the wrong thing can get you defunded—or deported. Everyday travelers to America now nervously expunge anything from their social-media feeds that could be interpreted as criticism of the Trump administration for fear of being arraigned at the border. So much for free speech. For all the flaws in Europe's approach to free expression, European universities do not typically advise American and other foreign students to delete private messages for fear of attracting the attention of the authorities. Yet Europeans would be well advised to recognize that there is a significant kernel of truth in some of the critiques. Recent EU laws governing online content are a sprawling mess, seem unlikely to fix the internet's problems, and risk creating structures that can be used to suppress legitimate debate. Much as Americans too readily overlook the deep fear of political extremism in a continent drenched in blood through two world wars and disfigured by fascism and Soviet Communism in living memory, the shadows of history should not be used to curtail basic freedoms today. There are stark differences in attitude toward markets and regulation too. Clearly America and Europe will never have the same attitude toward risk; the sink-or-swim approach to poverty in the U.S. is unimaginable to most Europeans, not least because it is historically associated with the rise of extremism that inflicted so much damage on the continent in the 20th century. Equally, the risk-averse (and in many cases self-sabotaging) approach to regulation in the EU is inexplicable to most Americans, who have seen how a swashbuckling culture of innovation has delivered unimaginable wealth and ingenuity to the U.S. These vastly different experiences naturally shape the operating cultures of the two continents: the American, which instinctively rejects restrictions on enterprise, no matter the broader ramifications for society; the European, which reflexively recoils from rugged individualism, even at the expense of sorely needed economic dynamism. The fact remains that Europe's businesses and innovators are held back by institutions that too often seek to prevent every potential harm rather than deliver any potential benefit. For all the desire to see 'the West' as an expression of mutual values derived from the same fundamental perspective, Europe and America are more different than our shared culture—from Henry James to Hollywood—would suggest. Our history and experiences are different; our attitudes and societies are different; and our place in the world is different too. Nothing has illustrated this more dramatically than the volte-face in U.S. government attitudes toward the Kremlin. If the aftermath of the Second World War was the foundation upon which transatlantic solidarity was established, a united stance against the authoritarian ambitions of Russia provided the brickwork for that solidarity throughout the Cold War period. Yet memories of the former have now faded, and Trump has chosen to treat Putin with more political respect than many leaders in Europe. Conor Friedersdorf: Europe's free-speech problem This abrupt change has shaken the tenets of Atlanticism down to its core. While Europeans have belatedly recognized the need to bear more of the costs for their own security, the realization that Europe and America see the geostrategic threats of the world from fundamentally different perspectives is taking root. America's basic message to Europe of late has been: You're on your own. From now on, don't expect too much help from us. The fact that a bus load of European leaders had to surround Trump to extract the hitherto wholly uncontroversial idea that the U.S. might play some role—with no boots on the ground—to guarantee Ukraine's future security, is a sign of how far things have changed. But this logic goes both ways. In the coming years, it will become more difficult for Washington to insist that Europe follows its lead in isolating and weakening China, especially if doing so harms European prosperity. If the U.S. is ever more ambivalent to the Russian threat on Europe's doorstep—especially if any peace deal in Ukraine gives Putin a free hand to destabilize or reinvade the country in the future—and continues to interfere in European elections while hitting Europeans with tariffs, European governments will have difficulty explaining to voters why they should go out of their way to help Uncle Sam in its rivalry with Beijing. In all of this, the inescapable facts of geography appear to be reasserting themselves. Europe does not face Asia across the Pacific. Russian tanks will never roll onto American soil. Of the two continents, America is blessed with the most benign geographical inheritance: a young continent-size nation, shielded by two vast oceans on either side, with mostly pliant neighbors to the north and south and a national history free of external invasion (though of course not without foreign attacks), one that has skillfully ridden its natural advantage to a hegemonic position and now stands without equal. Compare that with the cluttered old patchwork of middling and small nations—with different ethnic, religious, and linguistic identities stretching back millennia—living cheek by jowl in a crowded continent in a risky neighborhood. To most Americans, conflicts in the Middle East are a distant tragedy; to Europeans, they are next door. Russia is ever menacing; a land war rages in the heart of the continent; and handling mass migration across the Mediterranean from Africa continues to divide European governments. Europe is simply more precariously located than many Americans appreciate. Today's shift in American politics marks a new chapter in the diverging histories of our two continents. It is no passing mood, much though Trump's critics might wish otherwise. A significant portion of the American voting public supports the newly assertive 'America First' worldview. This will not disappear overnight, nor will the growing distance between Europe and America. And that is perhaps the most important lesson of all: Rather than being mugged by the surprise discovery that we are very different, maybe a more mature transatlantic relationship going forward will acknowledge and even celebrate those differences. There is no reason why we cannot have a productive relationship—geopolitically, economically, culturally—despite them. The answer to the ineluctable distance between the lives and perspectives of our citizens is not to throw up our hands in horror but to look for the places where our interests ought to overlap—we are both continents born of the Enlightenment, and rooted in democracy, after all—and find ways to work together toward tangible goals without the emotional baggage that accompanies a forced sense of kinship. Finding a new equilibrium will require a measure of humility on both sides of the pond. Trump, Vance, and their colleagues should cease believing—unlikely though that currently seems—that 'America First' must be 'America Everywhere,' as if Europe should be brought to heel by emulating the one-eyed view of 'freedom' espoused by the hard right in the U.S. And Europeans should stop moping about the fact that the U.S. has chosen a very different trajectory driven by a different worldview, and work instead to strengthen their own continent. Perhaps, like a couple sustaining a marriage which has lost all its early magic, we will both emerge stronger for the realization of a fundamental truth: We're different, and there's nothing wrong in that.
UPI
10 hours ago
- UPI
Why America still needs public school education
The Trump administration is diverting billions of taxpayer funds into K-12 private schools. Photo by Natã Romualdo/ Pexels While the White House's fight with elite universities such as Columbia and Harvard has recently dominated the headlines, the feud overshadows the broader and more far-reaching assault on K-12 public education by the Trump administration and many states. The Trump administration has gutted the Department of Education, imperiling efforts to protect students' civil rights, and proposed billions in public education cuts for fiscal year 2026. Meanwhile, the administration is diverting billions of taxpayer funds into K-12 private schools. These moves build upon similar efforts by conservative states to rein in public education going back decades. But the consequences of withdrawing from public education could be dire for the United States In our 2024 book, How Government Built America, we explore the history of public education, from Horace Mann's "common school movement" in the early 19th century to the GI Bill in the 20th that helped millions of veterans go to college and become homeowners after World War II. We found that public education has been essential for not only creating an educated workforce but for inculcating the United States' fundamental values of liberty, equality, fairness and the common good. In the public good Opponents of public education often refer to public schools as "government schools," a pejorative that seems intended to associate public education with "big government" -- seemingly at odds with the small government preference of many Americans. But, as we have previously explored, government has always been a significant partner with the private market system in achieving the country's fundamental political values. Public education has been an important part of that partnership. Education is what economists call a public good, which means it not only benefits students, but the country, as well. Mann, an education reformer often dubbed the father of the American public school system, argued that universal, publicly funded, nonsectarian public schools would help sustain American political institutions, expand the economy and fend off social disorder. In researching Mann's common schools and other educational history for our book, two lessons stood out to us. One is that the U.S. investment in public education over the past 150 years has created a well-educated workforce that has fueled innovation and unparalleled prosperity. As our book documents, for example, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the states expanded public education to include high school to meet the increasing demand for a more educated citizenry as a result of the Industrial Revolution. And the GI Bill made it possible for returning veterans to earn college degrees or train for vocations, support young families and buy homes, farms or businesses, and it encouraged them to become more engaged citizens, making "U.S. democracy more vibrant in the middle of the 20th century." The other, equally significant lesson is that the democratic and republican principals that propelled Mann's vision of the common school have colored many Americans' assumptions about public schooling ever since. Mann's goal was a "virtuous republican citizenry" - that is, a citizenry educated in "good citizenship, democratic participation and societal well-being." Mann believed there was nothing more important than "the proper training of the rising generation," calling it the country's "highest earthly duty." Attacking public education Today, Mann's vision and all that's been accomplished by public education is under threat. Trump's second term has supercharged efforts by conservatives over the past 75 years to control what is taught in the public schools and to replace public education with private schools. Most notably, Trump has begun dismantling the Department of Education to devolve more policymaking to the state level. The department is responsible for, among other things, distributing federal funds to public schools, protecting students' civil rights and supporting high-quality educational research. It has also been responsible for managing more than $1 trillion dollars in student loans -- a function that the administration is moving to the Small Business Administration, which has no experience in loan management. The president's March 2025 executive order has slashed the department's staff in half, with especially deep cuts to the Office for Civil Rights, which, as noted, protects student from illegal discrimination. Trump's efforts to slash education funding has so far hit roadblocks with Congress and the public. The administration is aiming to cut education funding by $12 billion for fiscal year 2026, which Congress is currently negotiating. And contradicting its stance on ceding more control to states and local communities, the administration has also been mandating what can't and must be taught in public schools. For example, it's threatened funding for school districts that recognize transgender identities or teach about structural racism, white privilege and similar concepts. On the other hand, the White House is pushing the use of "patriotic" education that depicts the founding of the U.S. as "unifying, inspiring and ennobling." Promoting private education As Trump and states have cut funding and resources to public education, they've been shifting more money to K-12 private schools. Most recently, the budget bill passed by Congress in July 2025 gives taxpayers a tax credit for donations to organizations that fund private school scholarships. The credit, which unlike a deduction counts directly against how much tax someone owes, is $1,700 for individuals and double for married couples. The total cost could run into the billions, since it's unclear how many taxpayers will take advantage. Meanwhile, 33 states direct public money toward private schools by providing vouchers, tax credits or another form of financial assistance to parents. All together, states allocated $8.2 billion to support private school education in 2024. Government funding of private schools diverts money away from public education and makes it more difficult for public schools to provide the quality of education that would most benefit students and the public at large. In Arizona, for example, many public schools are closing their doors permanently as a result of the state's support for charter schools, homeschooling and private school vouchers. That's because public schools are funded based on how many students they have. As more students switch to private schools, there's less money to cover teacher salaries and fixed costs such as building maintenance. Ultimately, that means fewer resources to educate the students who remain in the public school system. Living up to aspirations We believe the harm to the country of promoting private schools while rolling back support for public education is about more than dollars and cents. It would mean abandoning the principle of universal, nonsectarian education for America's children. And in so doing, Mann's "virtuous citizenry" will be much harder to build and maintain. America's private market system, in which individuals are free to contract with each other with minimal government interference, has been important to building prosperity and opportunity in the United States., as our book documents. But, as we also establish, relying on private markets to educate America's youth makes it harder to create equal opportunity for children to learn and be economically successful, leaving the country less prosperous and more divided. Sidney Shapiro is a professor of law at Wake Forest University and Joseph P. Tomain is a professor of law at the University of Cincinnati. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the authors.
