Question: Environmental anthropology is a sub-specialty within the field of anthropology that takes an active role in examining the relationships between humans and their environment across space and time. The contemporary perspective of environmental anthropology, and arguably at least the backdrop, if not the focus of most of the ethnographies and cultural fieldworks of today, is political ecology. Many characterize this new perspective as more informed with culture, politics and power, globalization, localized issues, and more. The focus and data interpretation is often used for arguments for/against or creation of policy, and to prevent corporate exploitation and damage of land. Often, the observer has become an active part of the struggle either directly (organizing, participation) or indirectly (articles, documentaries, books, ethnographies). Such is the case with environmental justice advocate Melissa Checker and her relationship with the people of Hyde Park.
Is there an answer to this question: What do many characterize the new perspective as being more informed with?

Answer: culture, politics and power, globalization, localized issues, and more.


Question: Cycling is popular in Tucson due to its flat terrain and dry climate. Tucson and Pima County maintain an extensive network of marked bike routes, signal crossings, on-street bike lanes, mountain-biking trails, and dedicated shared-use paths. The Loop is a network of seven linear parks comprising over 100 mi (160 km) of paved, vehicle-free trails that encircles the majority of the city with links to Marana and Oro Valley. The Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee (TPCBAC) serves in an advisory capacity to local governments on issues relating to bicycle recreation, transportation, and safety. Tucson was awarded a gold rating for bicycle-friendliness by the League of American Bicyclists in 2006.
Is there an answer to this question: What organization advises the Tucson government on bike concerns?

Answer: Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee


Question: Under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), there is no general federal common law. Although federal courts can create federal common law in the form of case law, such law must be linked one way or another to the interpretation of a particular federal constitutional provision, statute, or regulation (which in turn was enacted as part of the Constitution or after). Federal courts lack the plenary power possessed by state courts to simply make up law, which the latter are able to do in the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions replacing the common law. Only in a few narrow limited areas, like maritime law, has the Constitution expressly authorized the continuation of English common law at the federal level (meaning that in those areas federal courts can continue to make law as they see fit, subject to the limitations of stare decisis).
Is there an answer to this question: When are states allowed to use plenary power?

Answer: absence of constitutional or statutory provisions replacing the common law


Question: Prior to the one-drop rule, different states had different laws regarding color. More importantly, social acceptance often played a bigger role in how a person was perceived and how identity was construed than any law. In frontier areas, there were fewer questions about origins. The community looked at how people performed, whether they served in the militia and voted, which were the responsibilities and signs of free citizens. When questions about racial identity arose because of inheritance issues, for instance, litigation outcomes often were based on how people were accepted by neighbors.
Is there an answer to this question: Where did people not ask about racial background?

Answer:
frontier areas