Links - 3/10/25

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usurp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_trial

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/03/06/texas-countywide-voting-polling-locations-legislature/

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/03/04/texas-senate-housing-crisis-solution/

https://capitol.texas.gov/Reports/Report.aspx?LegSess=89R&ID=enablinglegislation

https://www.amha.org/

https://library.municode.com/tx/pearland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilated_victory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisville,_Kentucky

Vote For Pedro

Ponies are Dwarf Horses

Comments?

 

Dear ChatGPT: How did Benito Mussolini consolidate power?

 Benito Mussolini consolidated power in Italy through a combination of political maneuvering, intimidation, and strategic use of force. Here’s a breakdown of the key steps he took to solidify his control:

1. Formation of the Fascist Party (1919-1921)

• Mussolini first founded the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento in 1919, a nationalist and paramilitary group. It attracted former soldiers, nationalists, and disaffected Italians who were unhappy with the outcomes of World War I.
• In 1921, Mussolini rebranded the movement as the National Fascist Party (PNF), giving it more political legitimacy.
• He used the discontent over Italy’s post-war situation (economic hardship, social unrest, and the "mutilated victory" narrative) to garner support.

2. Use of Violence and Intimidation (Squadristi)

• Mussolini’s Fascists, known as the Blackshirts, used violence and intimidation to suppress opposition groups, especially socialists and communists.
• The Squadristi, Fascist paramilitary groups, attacked socialist offices, trade unions, and left-wing activists, creating an atmosphere of fear.
• The government at the time, led by liberals, was either unwilling or unable to stop these actions, allowing Mussolini to present himself as a strongman who could restore order.

3. The March on Rome (1922)

• By 1922, Mussolini had significant popular support, especially from the middle class, industrialists, and the army, who feared a socialist revolution.
• Mussolini organized the March on Rome in October 1922, a show of force in which thousands of Fascists marched towards the capital. While the march itself was largely symbolic, it pressured the government into action.
• King Victor Emmanuel III, fearing civil war and seeing Mussolini as a strong leader who could bring stability, invited Mussolini to form a government. On October 29, 1922, Mussolini became Prime Minister.

4. Consolidation of Power (1922-1925)

• Once in power, Mussolini moved quickly to consolidate his control:
  • Dissolving Political Opposition: Mussolini passed laws that dismantled political opposition. By 1923, he had implemented the Acerbo Law, which allowed the party with the most votes in an election to receive two-thirds of the seats in parliament. This helped the Fascists secure a parliamentary majority.
  • Control over the Media: Mussolini took control of the press and used it as a tool for propaganda. He portrayed himself as a savior of Italy and suppressed critical voices.
  • Repression of Rivals: Mussolini’s regime used violent tactics to suppress opposition. Communists, socialists, and other political rivals were arrested, exiled, or killed.

5. The 1925 Dictatorship

• In 1925, after a failed assassination attempt on a prominent Fascist leader, Mussolini declared himself Il Duce (the leader) and began to rule by decree. He dismantled Italy’s democratic institutions and established a totalitarian state.
• Political parties other than the Fascists were banned, and Mussolini centralized power in the hands of the state.
• Mussolini also created the Corporatist State, in which the economy was organized into state-controlled syndicates, reducing the power of trade unions and industrialists who were not aligned with the Fascists.

6. Cult of Personality

• Mussolini built a strong personal cult, presenting himself as a strong, decisive leader capable of restoring Italy to greatness.
• Propaganda, art, and public displays promoted Mussolini as the embodiment of Italian strength, often comparing him to historic figures like Julius Caesar and Napoleon.

In essence, Mussolini consolidated power through a mixture of political savvy, strategic alliances, manipulation of public opinion, and the use of force. His ability to exploit the political instability in Italy and create a narrative of national revival helped him maintain control throughout his reign.

 https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/we-live-like-royalty-and-dont-know-it?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0BMABhZGlkAAAGEK9SGJcBHV3uHaf3lHeqjcRkeJxixbn9objEG8imlrBXqHVLbrmqJ3CDNjQEsoSz1A_aem_JfId-ebSUNi1Onk_qVAozA&utm_medium=paid&utm_source=fb&utm_id=6668725138239&utm_content=6668725138439&utm_term=6668725138639&utm_campaign=6668725138239

Grievances listed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence

They all boil down to an attempt by the king of England  to consolidate governing power, which createsa dictatorship.  

- Click here for the document.
- Click here for the Texas Declaration of Independence.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;

For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

For imposing taxes on us without our consent;

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;

For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Power, Class & The Downfall of Bismarck in Imperial Germany 1878-1890

Compare these two

According to James Madison in Fed 10, it would be more difficult for a permanent majority to form in the top nation, than the one on the bottom.

You can see why if you think it through.

 

From Americana Corner: Thomas Jefferson, the Virginia Barrister

I found this story interesting, especially what it says about the judiciary in Virginia. 

Notice that Royal Governors could shut down the state legislature of they objected to its activities.

- Click here for the article. 

In 1765, Parliament passed the Stamp Act, the first internal tax on the American colonies, and thus began a decade of missteps by the British. Their miscalculations would take their country and their colonists on a direct path to Lexington Green and Concord Bridge on April 19, 1775. During this same year, Thomas Jefferson was concluding his time studying law under George Wythe and began to turn his eye towards the world at large and, more specifically, politics in the Colony of Virginia. The timing would prove to be most fortunate for the country as Jefferson would lend his considerable skills to the political maelstrom that was about to be unleashed.

The Stamp Act placed a tax on virtually all printed paper goods used in the colonies, items such as newspapers, playing cards, almanacs, diplomas, pamphlets, legal documents, and insurance policies. Prior to this Act, the colonies had been permitted to determine internal taxation policies in accordance with their founding charters, while the Crown had determined taxes on external matters such as custom duties on imported goods.

Not surprisingly, the reaction by the colonists to this encroachment on their established liberties was immediate and widespread across all the colonies. On May 29, Patrick Henry rose in the House of Burgesses in Williamsburg to make a protest speech against the Stamp Act. Forewarned of the speech by Henry who stayed with Jefferson whenever Henry visited Williamsburg, Jefferson walked down Duke of Glouster Street with his friend and fellow law student, John Tyler (the father of John Tyler, Jr. our country’s future tenth President) to take in Henry’s theatrics.

Henry lived up to his advance billing and shocked his fellow Burgesses with his words declaring that Parliament’s usurpation of taxation authority “has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well as American freedom” and implying resistance to the measure. Cries of “Treason, Treason” filled the hall, and Henry famously replied, “If this be treason, make the most of it.”

Jefferson was moved by Henry’s delivery and his message. In his autobiography, Jefferson stated the oratory was “such as I have never heard from any other man.”

More importantly, Henry’s speech planted the revolutionary seeds in Jefferson’s mind that he was an American, rather than a British subject. These seeds would germinate and be reaped in 1776 in Jefferson’s masterpiece, the Declaration of Independence.

But that was ten years in the future, and for now Jefferson settled into his life as a newly minted attorney. In colonial Virginia, there were two levels of courts, the county courts and the General Court of Virginia. The county courts were scattered throughout the colony and the attorneys practicing their art in them tended to be less educated and less sophisticated than those that practiced at the General Court in Williamsburg. Additionally, while county court attorneys were fairly numerous, in 1767 only eight lawyers practiced before the General Court.

The common practice was for new lawyers to get their experience and initial fees in the county courts and then possibly try to get admitted to the General Court, the true legal elite of Virginia. Jefferson opted to bypass the county courts and try for admittance to the General Court right away believing that it to be the only place where law as a “science may be encouraged.” He was accepted and, at age twenty four, joined a small group of attorneys much older than Jefferson and considered the best the colony had to offer, men such as George Wythe, Edmund Pendleton, Peyton Randolph, John Blair, and Richard Bland.

Being the only attorney from western Virginia practicing before the General Court, Jefferson headed west from Williamsburg looking for clients who needed a lawyer to bring their case back east to the General Court. Over the course of the next seven years, Jefferson crisscrossed the colony on horseback visiting courthouses in nearly every county, developing a broad clientele, and, more importantly, establishing a reputation as one of the most respected barristers in Virginia. Jefferson was not afraid of hard work and handled as many as five hundred cases a year, representing some of the wealthiest men in the colony.

The recognition Jefferson gained by his hard work paid dividends in 1768 when the twenty five year old Jefferson was elected to the House of Burgesses, filling the seat his revered father, Peter, had once held. Jefferson entered the assembly at a time of mounting emotions in both Virginia and the other colonies, in large part because of the Townshend Acts of 1767. These measures imposed additional taxes on the colonists and further encroached on American liberties.

There was also growing concern in the colonies about the habit of Crown officials to dissolve colonial legislatures whenever they refused to comply with Parliamentary acts with which they disagreed. The New York assembly had been dissolved in 1768 when it refused to adhere to the Quartering Act and pay to house British troops stationed in the colony. In response, the Massachusetts House sent out a circular letter calling for a united response from all colonies in support of New York; as a result, the Massachusetts House was suspended by its Royal Governor.

In May 1769, the House of Burgesses passed resolves drafted by George Washington, George Mason, and Richard Henry Lee which stated that all taxation authority rested in colonial legislatures and called for a boycott of all British goods until Parliament reversed course. Jefferson, the new Burgess from Albemarle County, took his first steps down the road to revolution when he signed these provocative resolves, aligning himself with what the Governor called the “young hotheads.”

Even though he signed, Jefferson felt the demands did not go far enough in that he believed Parliament did not have the authority to impose any taxes, internal or external, on the colonies. Lord Botetourt, the Royal Governor, angered by the resolves, immediately dissolved the Assembly. Parliament’s acts were unwittingly turning thirteen disparate British colonies into a unified American confederation. That probably would not have happened were it not for their heavy handed methods which gave the Americans a rallying point around which to coalesce.

Questions for ChatGPT:

What federalist papers dealt with the legislature?
What federalist papers dealt with the executive?
What federalist papers dealt with the judiciary?

Dear ChatGPT: Can you own a lake but not the land around it in Texas?

An interesting question for a student at Turner. 

I had no idea.

Yes, in Texas, it is possible to own a lake (or a body of water) but not the land around it, but it depends on the specific circumstances. The ownership of lakes and the surrounding land is influenced by a mix of property rights and water rights, and the situation can vary based on whether the lake is navigable or non-navigable, as well as the lake's location (private land vs. public access).

Here’s how it generally works:

1. Non-Navigable Lakes (Private Lakes):

- Private Property: If the lake is on private land (non-navigable), the owner of the land under the lake typically has the rights to the water within the lake as well. This means that if you own a lake situated entirely on your land, you own both the water and the surrounding land.

- Water Rights: While you may own the water, Texas law has water rights regulations governing the use of water. So, even though you can own the water, it doesn’t mean you have unrestricted rights to use or divert it in any way.

2. Navigable Lakes (Public Access):

- Public Ownership of the Water: In Texas, navigable waters (those that are suitable for navigation by boats, barges, etc.) are considered public waterways. If a lake is navigable, the water itself is considered a public resource, and you cannot exclusively own it, even if the land around it is privately owned.

- Riparian Rights: If you own land along a navigable lake, you may have riparian rights (rights related to the use of water), such as the right to access the water and use it for certain purposes like recreation or irrigation. However, you do not own the water itself, and the state retains authority over its management and usage.

3. Exceptions and Special Cases:

- Lakebed Ownership: In some cases, you may own the lakebed (the land beneath the water) but not the water itself. For example, if you own land that includes the lakebed but the water is navigable, the state still controls the water.

- Water Contracts: You might be able to own the land around the lake but have a contract or agreement with the state or a water authority for certain water rights, such as irrigation or industrial use. This doesn’t grant you ownership of the water but allows you to use it for specific purposes.

4. Practical Example:

If you own a non-navigable lake on your property, you can own the lake and surrounding land. If it's a navigable lake, the lake water is public, and the state controls its use, but you can own the land around the lake.

For example, a lake like Lake Travis near Austin is a navigable lake, so the state of Texas controls the water, but adjacent landowners around the lake have property rights over their land.

Summary:

Yes, you can own a lake without owning the land around it in Texas, particularly if the lake is navigable. However, the ownership and use of the water depend on whether the lake is public or private, and the surrounding land is subject to riparian rights if it’s a navigable body of water. Non-navigable lakes generally allow you to own both the land and the water.

From the Houston Chronicle: Electricity grid companies fight over potential profits from Texas Legislature’s proposals

The article regards Senate Bill 6

- Click here for it. 

And mentions the Texas Energy Fund.

- Click here for that.

- Click here for the article.  

Texas lawmakers are trying to improve the state's electric grid, deciding how much we’ll spend on transmission lines, energy efficiency, natural gas plants and renewable energy. They will need the wisdom of Solomon to navigate the male bovine droppings that lobbyists are spreading in Austin.

The stakes are high: Hundreds of people died during the 2021 blackouts during the coldest nights in a generation. Political futures ride on preventing another outage. Billions of consumer dollars will flow to those who twist the energy markets in their favor.

The trouble begins with defining the problem. How much electricity will we need, how many miles of new transmission lines are necessary and should the state dictate how electricity is generated?

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas warns that corporations have proposed adding enormous amounts of new load to the grid, potentially double the electricity used today. But no one knows how many crypto mines, artificial intelligence facilities, data centers and new oil and gas projects will get built, because 80% have historically dropped out before construction.

Even more difficult to answer is whether high electricity prices, improved technology or greater efficiency will reduce forecasted demand. Some proposed data centers expect to use as much electricity as Waco. New technologies could slash that demand in half, while next-generation solar panels could double output.

The biggest problem today is getting power to where it's needed. Wind and solar energy in South and West Texas often get wasted because there are not enough transmission lines. The Senate Business and Commerce Committee declared it would not turn away companies looking to tap into Texas’s grid.

“Texas is open for business … especially data centers and AI,” Sen. Phil King, R-Weatherford, said.

The trick is maintaining reliability and reasonable consumer prices without ruining the climate.

King’s Senate Bill 6 is a gift to transmission companies such as CenterPoint, Oncor, AEP and TNMP. King has long pushed legislation favorable to these regulated utilities, even intervening to support CenterPoint’s disastrous $800 million investment in backup generators.

SB 6 would allow the PUC to authorize hundreds of miles of new power lines and pay for them with surcharges on consumer electricity bills. The bill would require data centers and some other large-load customers to pay for transmission costs, even if they have their own power plants and don’t use transmission lines. Oil and gas companies get special treatment, of course.

Large loads could no longer save money on transmission costs by cutting their usage during the four hottest days of the year, King said. Generators that want to take power off the competitive wholesale market and sell directly to large loads would have to ask transmission companies first.

Becuase SB 6 would shift costs onto large loads and limit generators’ options, lobbyists for manufacturers and generators are mobilizing to water it down. They want more money spent on generation and energy efficiency.

The Legislature created the Texas Energy Fund to subsidize natural gas power plants in 2023, and the PUC is trying to disburse $5 billion in low-interest loans. But generators are dropping out, the latest because it couldn’t find the necessary turbines. There is a global shortage of electric grid equipment.

PUC Chairman Thomas Gleeson told senators that companies are struggling to meet the fund’s December deadline and warned that new power plants will not be generating electricity until 2026-2029. He wants the authority to extend deadlines.

 

- How Spread Out Is the U.S. Population?

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2025/03/04/justices-again-reject-case-against-bias-response-teams#:~:text=%E2%80%9CBias%2Dresponse%20teams%20are%20the,ideas%20that%20make%20them%20uncomfortable.%E2%80%9D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbs_Act

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2020/june/spread-out-us-population

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1300

Texas Tribune: U.S. Supreme Court takes up Texas nuclear waste disposal case

- Click for it. 

From the Texas Tribune: Texas House and Senate lawmakers have laid out their property tax cut proposals. How do they compare?

- Click here for it. 

Dear ChatGPT: Outline the Iron Triangle Surrounding the Hemp Industry

The "Iron Triangle" refers to a close and mutually beneficial relationship between three key actors: government agencies, interest groups (such as lobbyists), and legislators. These relationships are characterized by the idea that these groups form a "triangle" of influence, with each of the three parties benefiting from cooperation with the others. In the context of the hemp industry, the Iron Triangle can be applied to the interactions between the government (at the federal and state levels), hemp-related businesses or lobbyists, and legislators who enact laws related to the hemp market.

Here’s how the Iron Triangle applies to the hemp industry:

Government Agencies:

- The U.S. government, through agencies like the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), regulates hemp production, processing, and commercialization. These agencies establish policies and regulations regarding hemp cultivation, testing, and distribution.

- With the legalization of hemp through the 2018 Farm Bill, the government agency’s role has expanded to ensure compliance with regulatory frameworks for things like THC levels and quality control.

Interest Groups (Lobbyists & Industry Associations):

- Hemp industry groups like the Hemp Industries Association (HIA), National Hemp Association (NHA), and other lobbyists work to influence government policies and push for legislation that benefits hemp growers, processors, and product manufacturers. These interest groups often advocate for less restrictive regulations, subsidies, or tax incentives to support the hemp sector.

- They often fund research or provide expert testimony to shape the direction of hemp legislation or regulation.

Legislators:

- Elected officials play a key role in crafting laws that either support or restrict hemp cultivation and its associated markets. They act as the bridge between government agencies and interest groups.

- Lawmakers in states like Colorado, Oregon, or Kentucky, for instance, have played a significant role in advancing hemp legalization and ensuring that favorable laws are enacted for growers, manufacturers, and consumers.

Key Interactions:

- Regulation & Legalization: In the early 2000s, the push from hemp lobbyists and industry groups led legislators to legalize hemp in certain states, setting the stage for broader national legal reforms.

- Policy Advocacy: Interest groups regularly lobby legislators to craft laws that favor their business interests. For example, they might advocate for less restrictive federal rules on how hemp can be grown or sold.

- Supportive Legislation: Legislators, especially those with hemp-growing constituents, often sponsor bills that favor the expansion of the hemp industry, offering incentives like tax breaks for hemp farmers or legal protections for hemp-derived CBD products.

- Challenges & Criticisms: One potential downside of an Iron Triangle in the hemp industry could be the close-knit, potentially non-transparent relationship between lobbyists, legislators, and government regulators, which can sometimes result in policies that favor corporate interests over public health or environmental concerns.

- Balancing the Market: As hemp becomes more commercially viable, the influence of large agricultural corporations could overpower smaller, independent farmers or processors in the sector.

In summary, the "Iron Triangle" in the hemp industry involves the strategic collaboration between the hemp industry (interest groups), government agencies, and legislators to shape policies and regulations that benefit the expansion and growth of the hemp market.

For more ask: Outline the Iron Triangle Opposing the Hemp Industry.

From the Texas Tribune: Hemp industry pushes back against Senate bill to ban THC

- Click here for the story. 

Six years after Texas lawmakers inadvertently triggered the state’s booming consumable hemp market, one chamber of the Legislature is pushing to shut down the industry by barring products that contain tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC.

Yet even with the backing of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the powerful Texas Senate leader, the proposal to ban THC faces uncertain prospects in the House, where the hemp industry is bullish about getting lawmakers to tighten regulations rather than quashing most of their products altogether.

In the lower chamber, efforts to ban THC products have failed to gain traction, and this session no House lawmaker has filed anything akin to Senate Bill 3, which would outlaw products containing any amount of THC. House leadership has avoided weighing in on the matter, including Speaker Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, who did not respond to a request for comment.

Mark Bordas, executive director of the Texas Hemp Business Council, said his group is “cautiously optimistic” that House lawmakers will forgo a ban and accept “thoughtful regulations” such as restricting THC products to Texans 21 and older, requiring tamper-proof packaging, and barring sales within a certain distance of schools. Some have also proposed tighter and more consistent testing requirements to ensure hemp products do not contain excessive levels of THC.

- Click here for the bill.

- Fiscal Note.

- Bill Analysis.

- HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE - CHAPTER 443.

- Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs.

Due Process cases before the U.S. Supreme Court

From ScotusBlog.

- Glossip v. Oklahoma.

The court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals; the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony.

- Barrett v. United States.

Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j).

- Speech First, Inc. v. Whitten.

Whether university bias-response teams — official entities that solicit anonymous reports of bias, track them, investigate them, ask to meet with the perpetrators, and threaten to refer students for formal discipline — objectively chill students’ speech under the First Amendment.

 

Links - 3/3/25

- How a chance meeting helped Texas become the nation’s top beekeeping state.

- A surge in bee deaths is hurting Texas beekeepers — and could affect the price of produce.

- Wait, does America suddenly have a record number of bees?

- Mike Morath.

- Texas Health and Human Services org chart.

- HHS Executive Commissioner Cecile Erwin Young.

- TACC: Community College Day.

- When a smoke shop opened near a Montrose school, parents took action. Now the Lege is involved.

- Alex Azar.

- District of Columbia v. Heller.

- Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Mexico.

- Tariff.

- BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE NATIONALSHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC.,IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS.

- At Supreme Court, Mexico to Offer Culprit for Cartel Violence: Gun Makers.

- Texas Cemeteries and Crematories Association.

- Death care industry in the United States.

- Self-Evaluation Report - Texas Funeral Service Commission.

- History of the Coroner System.

- Coroner.

- pharmacy benefits manager

- Anti-Kickback Enforcement Act.

- Tobacco Politics.

- Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Hearing - Step by Step: The Artemis Program and NASA's Path to Human Exploration of the Moon, Mars, and Beyond.

- what iron triangle surrounds the school voucher movement in Texas?
- what iron triangle surrounds opposition to the school voucher movement in Texas?
- what forces in the Texas legislature oppose school vouchers?
- what iron triangle surrounds policies involving cemeteries in Texas?
- What iron triangle exists surrounding the National Rifle Association?

 

Laugh Track Sound Effect | Soundboard Link 🔽🔽

Gun Cocking Sound Effect

Dear ChatGPT: What do we need to know about lobbying in Texas?

Lobbying in Texas plays a significant role in shaping the state's policies and laws. It is an important part of the political landscape, as interest groups, advocacy organizations, businesses, and individuals seek to influence lawmakers on a wide range of issues, from education to healthcare to taxes. Here’s what you need to know about lobbying in Texas:

1. The Role of Lobbying in Texas

• Influencing Legislation: Lobbyists aim to influence the actions of legislators by providing information, offering expertise, and advocating for or against specific bills or policies. Lobbying is seen as a way to ensure that lawmakers are aware of the interests and concerns of various stakeholders.
• Building Relationships: Lobbying often involves building relationships with legislators, their staff, and other key decision-makers in government. This can include meetings, testifying at hearings, and providing research or data that supports a particular stance on an issue.

2. Who Can Lobby in Texas?

• Professional Lobbyists: These are individuals or firms hired by organizations to represent their interests before the Texas Legislature and other government agencies. Professional lobbyists are required to register with the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) and report their activities.
• Corporate and Organizational Lobbyists: Many businesses, industries, trade associations, and nonprofit organizations hire lobbyists to advocate for their positions on issues relevant to their interests. For example, a healthcare association may lobby for changes in healthcare policy, or an oil and gas company may lobby for tax breaks.
• Grassroots Lobbying: While professional lobbyists are common, grassroots lobbying is also significant in Texas. This involves mobilizing ordinary citizens to contact their legislators, participate in campaigns, or testify at hearings in support of a cause. Grassroots lobbying helps show that there is broad public support for a specific issue.

3. Lobbying Laws and Regulations in Texas

• Registration and Disclosure: Lobbyists in Texas are required to register with the Texas Ethics Commission. They must disclose the names of their clients, the issues they are lobbying on, and how much money they are spending on lobbying efforts. This includes paying for travel, food, or gifts for legislators.
• Limits on Gifts: Lobbyists are restricted in the types of gifts they can give to lawmakers. Texas law limits the value of gifts that lobbyists can provide to state legislators, their staff, and other state officials. For example, the value of individual gifts is capped at $250 per year.
• Reporting Requirements: Lobbyists are required to file regular reports with the Texas Ethics Commission, detailing the money they have spent on lobbying activities, including expenditures for meals, travel, and entertainment related to lobbying.

4. The Texas Ethics Commission (TEC)

• Oversight and Enforcement: The TEC oversees lobbying activities in Texas, ensuring that lobbyists comply with state laws and regulations. It also provides transparency by making lobbyist registration and expenditure reports available to the public.
• Enforcement: If a lobbyist violates lobbying rules, such as failing to register or submit accurate reports, they may face penalties, including fines.

5. Lobbying and Political Campaigns

• Political Action Committees (PACs): Many interest groups and industries use PACs to influence elections by contributing to the campaigns of candidates who support their positions. These PACs often play a significant role in both legislative elections and in pushing issues before the legislature.
• Direct vs. Indirect Lobbying: Direct lobbying involves directly contacting lawmakers to influence their decisions. Indirect lobbying, or "grassroots" lobbying, involves mobilizing public support to sway lawmakers or other government officials. Both forms of lobbying can be effective in influencing policy.

6. The “Revolving Door”

• Former Legislators Becoming Lobbyists: The "revolving door" phenomenon refers to former legislators or state officials who leave their public service positions and then become lobbyists for organizations seeking to influence policy. This raises concerns about conflicts of interest and the potential for undue influence over the legislative process.
• Revolving Door Restrictions: Texas has some rules in place to limit the potential for conflicts of interest. For example, former legislators are prohibited from lobbying the legislature for a certain period after leaving office (two years for state legislators and one year for other state officials).

7. Lobbying Impact on Policy and Lawmaking

• Powerful Interests: In Texas, some of the most influential lobbyists represent major industries such as oil and gas, healthcare, education, and business. These groups often have the resources to exert significant influence on state lawmakers and push their preferred policies.
• Bipartisan Influence: Lobbying in Texas is bipartisan, with lobbyists working across party lines to influence the legislature. Many lobbyists focus on building long-term relationships with both Republican and Democratic lawmakers to ensure their interests are represented, regardless of party control.

8. Public Perception and Criticism

• Concerns About "Big Money" in Politics: One common criticism of lobbying is that it allows wealthy and powerful interest groups to have more influence over the political process than ordinary citizens. Critics argue that this creates a system where laws are made to benefit the well-funded few, rather than the needs of the broader public.
• Calls for Reform: There have been ongoing calls for more transparency and reform in lobbying practices, such as stricter limits on campaign contributions or stronger regulations on lobbying activities to reduce the influence of money in politics.

9. Recent Trends and Developments

• Increased Lobbying on Education and Healthcare: In recent years, there has been a surge in lobbying related to education and healthcare, especially with debates over public school funding, school choice, and Medicaid expansion. Various stakeholders, including teachers' unions, business groups, and healthcare providers, have been heavily involved in pushing for policies in these areas.
• Tech and Energy Industry Influence: Texas, being a leader in the oil, gas, and tech industries, sees significant lobbying efforts from companies within these sectors. Issues such as energy regulations, environmental policies, and tech innovation often attract intense lobbying.

Conclusion:

Lobbying in Texas is a crucial element of the state's political process. It is highly regulated, and professional lobbyists must adhere to strict registration and disclosure requirements. While lobbying is a tool for interest groups to influence legislation, it also raises concerns about the role of money in politics and the balance of power between public and private interests. Understanding the regulations, the key players, and the influence of lobbying is essential for anyone involved in or interested in Texas politics.

Week 8 . . .

Iron Triangles

Issue Networks

The Revolving Door

Lobbying 

PACs and SuperPACs

Agency Capture

Get out the Vote Drives

Fed 51

Elections to Governing Institutions

Review of U.S. and Texas Constitutions

Links 2/28/25

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_M._Gomez

https://glsolutions.com/about-us/

https://glsolutions.com/regulatory-agency-software-blog/how-regulatory-agencies-leverage-ai-and-what-s-next/#:~:text=Many%20regulatory%20agencies%20already%20rely,efficiency%20and%20accuracy%20across%20departments.

https://www.squirepattonboggs.com/en/services/key-issues/artificial-intelligence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Neas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Donohue

- What is lobbying
- who are the most powerful lobbyists in the United States?
- who are the most powerful people who lobby in the United States?
- What are the weakest interest groups?

From Inside Higher Education: Trump Is Targeting DEI in Higher Ed. But What Does He Mean?

How does the bureaucracy implement a decision made by the president?

Or any chief executive for that matter. 

- Click here for the story.

Early this month, the University of North Carolina system told its component institutions that their general education requirements could no longer mandate that students take courses “related to diversity, equity and inclusion.” System officials further said majors couldn’t require DEI-related courses without university chancellors providing “tailored waivers” granting exceptions.

. . . UNC system general counsel Andrew Tripp explicitly told chancellors in a letter that the change was intended to comply with the president’s Jan. 21 executive order that mandated an end to “illegal DEI” and called for restoring “merit-based opportunity.” Tripp said noncompliance threatened the university’s roughly $1.4 billion in annual federal research funding. The White House Office of Management and Budget had already attempted to pause federal funding nationwide, saying in a since-rescinded memo that it wanted to stop bankrolling DEI and other activities that “may be implicated by the executive orders.”

Yet, despite ordering this far-reaching response to Trump’s directives, Tripp also told the UNC system chancellors that he didn’t know what the order really required. Trump’s order didn’t define DEI; at one point it even called for excising from federal grant procedures “DEI and DEIA principles, under whatever name they may appear.” Nor did Tripp’s memo explain to university leaders what DEI means, much less what a course credit “related to” DEI encompasses.

The string of vague and sometimes seemingly contradictory executive actions has left leaders of federally funded colleges and universities and their employees to wonder: Should they wait for clarification—legal or otherwise—before upending their DEI policies and programs? Or respond like the UNC system and start ditching things that might be perceived as DEI activities?

More on the recent German election

 

From the New York Times: Austrian Parties Reach Deal to Form Government Without Far Right

More on proportional representation and party coalitions.

- Click here. 

Three mainstream political parties in Austria said on Thursday that they had reached an agreement to form a new government that excludes the far right, ending five months of roller coaster negotiations after an election last fall.

The coalition is set to announce ministerial posts on Friday, but the new chancellor is likely to be Christian Stocker, the head of the People’s Party, the biggest coalition partner.

The new government is set to include left- and right-of-center parties but not the far-right Freedom Party, which finished first in the September vote.

The Freedom Party, which was founded by former Nazi soldiers in the 1950s and had campaigned on promises to deport immigrants and ban political forms of Islam, had been bidding to become the latest in a wave of hard-right parties to take power in Europe.

The mainstream parties had initially refused to work with the Freedom Party and tried to form a government without it, but those talks failed last month. The most conservative of those parties, the People’s Party, then entered negotiations with the Freedom Party over forming a government that would have made Herbert Kickl, the outspoken leader of the far-right party, the chancellor.

But those talks broke down as well, setting the stage for a final effort by the mainstream parties.

On Thursday, the People’s Party, the Austrian Social Democrats and the liberal NEOS party announced the deal to form a coalition and presented a 200-page plan for governing the country for the next four years.

While the main focus of the plan is on the budget and the economy, it also touches on migration reform and proposes a head-scarf ban for young girls, in a nod to the Freedom Party.

The far right has gained popularity since last fall and is now polling at nearly 35 percent. It would most likely end up the big winner if this coalition fails.

 

Links - 2/26/25

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufkin,_Texas

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB2610

https://www.kxan.com/news/education/texas-four-day-school-districts/

https://www.tcta.org/professional-resources/publications/the-classroom-teacher/winter-2022-23/more-texas-districts-shift-schedules-to-four-day-school-weeks

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/pollok-tx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollok,_Texas

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/02/24/texas-house-property-tax-cut/

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/02/ohio-woman-asks-court-to-weigh-in-on-requirements-for-reverse-discrimination-claim/

https://www.brazoriacountyclerktx.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/15265/638146607091870000

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fec3jhPGTwY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dms3YNiixE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA8AoDMle0g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bqrNTo-dlY

How the Supreme Court of the United States and federal courts work and affect Texans

- Click here. 

How to blow into a Referee Whistle

How to properly blow a Fox 40 Pealess Whistle

 

Cognitive Biases

What is Cognitive Bias? 

A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment. Individuals create their own "subjective reality" from their perception of the input. An individual's construction of reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behavior in the world. Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, and irrationality.

While cognitive biases may initially appear to be negative, some are adaptive. They may lead to more effective actions in a given context. Furthermore, allowing cognitive biases enables faster decisions which can be desirable when timeliness is more valuable than accuracy, as illustrated in heuristics. Other cognitive biases are a "by-product" of human processing limitations, resulting from a lack of appropriate mental mechanisms (bounded rationality), the impact of an individual's constitution and biological state (see embodied cognition), or simply from a limited capacity for information processing. Research suggests that cognitive biases can make individuals more inclined to endorsing pseudoscientific beliefs by requiring less evidence for claims that confirm their preconceptions. This can potentially distort their perceptions and lead to inaccurate judgments.

List of Cognitive Biases.

Anchoring bias Anchoring (cognitive bias)

The anchoring bias, or focalism, is the tendency to rely too heavily—to "anchor"—on one trait or piece of information when making decisions (usually the first piece of information acquired on that subject).

Apophenia Apophenia

The tendency to perceive meaningful connections between unrelated things. The following are types of apophenia:

Availability heuristic Availability heuristic

The availability heuristic (also known as the availability bias) is the tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events with greater "availability" in memory, which can be influenced by how recent the memories are or how unusual or emotionally charged they may be. The availability heuristic includes or involves the following:

Confirmation bias: Confirmation bias

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.

Egocentric bias: Egocentric bias

Egocentric bias is the tendency to rely too heavily on one's own perspective and/or have a different perception of oneself relative to others.

Framing effect: Framing effect (psychology)

The framing effect is the tendency to draw different conclusions from the same information, depending on how that information is presented.

The Political Spectrum

This seems to be a rational way to approach the differences between the "left" and the "right."

Dear ChatGPT: What is ideology?

Ideology is a system of ideas, beliefs, or values that forms the basis of political, economic, or social theory and practice. It is a set of principles or a worldview that explains how society should be organized, what is considered right or wrong, and how power and resources should be distributed.

Ideologies often shape political parties, movements, and policies, influencing people's attitudes and behavior. For example, political ideologies like liberalism, conservatism, socialism, or nationalism offer frameworks for how society should function, guiding decisions on issues like government, economy, and individual rights.

In a broader sense, ideology can also refer to any cohesive set of beliefs that shape how people understand and interact with the world, including those related to religion, culture, or social norms.

More questions to ask: 

- What is liberalism / progressivism?
- What is conservatism?
- What is socialism?
- What is nationalism?

About Ad Fontes - to the source - Media

Since I use their media bias chart, it's useful to dig into their methodology. How do they determine if something is on the left or right? And how to they determine the quality of the a media source.

- For a full look at it, click here.  

These are the issues used to decide ideology: 

Question: which position is left and which position is right?

- Abortion-related policy
- Race-related policy
- Campaign finance
- Climate-related policy
- Criminal justice reform
- Defense/military budget
- Subsidized food and housing
- Gun-related policy
- Higher education policy
- Immigration
- International affairs
- K-12 education policy
- LGBTQ-related policies
- Marijuana policy
- Private/public health care funding
- Regulation of corporations
- Social security
- Tax-related policies

For each of the issues above, we request that each analyst identify their perspective as:

“Decidedly to the left”
“Moderately to the left”
“Centrist or undecided”
“Moderately to the right”
“Decidedly to the right”

 

- Apple Vows to Build A.I. Servers in Houston and Spend $500 Billion in U.S..

- Hon Hai acquires land in Texas, said to expand AI server production.

- Texas landlords scramble for property tax breaks worth millions as loophole closes: ‘Crazy gold rush’.

- Looking for a $1 million tax break? For a fee, these tiny Texas agencies are willing to help.

- National Turnout Rates 1789-Present.

From Lawfare: The Administrative State’s Two Faces

- Click here. 

 

 

Dear ChatGPT: What are the Political Pros and Cons of Social Media?

Social media has had a profound impact on politics, reshaping how political movements, campaigns, and public discourse unfold. While it has opened up new avenues for political engagement and participation, it also presents some significant challenges. Here's a look at the political pros and cons of social media:


Political Pros of Social Media

Increased Political Engagement
- Empowering Citizens: Social media allows individuals to participate in political discussions, campaigns, and activism in ways that were not possible in the past. People can share their opinions, raise awareness, and advocate for causes.
- Grassroots Movements: Social media has been crucial in organizing grassroots movements and protests. Examples like the Arab Spring, #BlackLivesMatter, and #MeToo movements show how social media can amplify marginalized voices and mobilize large groups for social and political change.

Direct Communication with Politicians
- Unfiltered Access: Politicians can communicate directly with the public through social media platforms, bypassing traditional media channels. This direct communication can increase transparency and responsiveness.
- Real-Time Engagement: Social media enables politicians to respond to issues in real time, engage with constituents, and address concerns immediately. This can make them appear more accessible and in touch with the public.

Campaigning and Political Mobilization
- Cost-Effective Campaigning: Political campaigns can use social media to reach large audiences at a fraction of the cost of traditional advertising (e.g., TV, radio). Targeted ads and posts can reach specific demographics, maximizing the efficiency of campaign spending.
- Voter Outreach: Social media is a powerful tool for increasing voter turnout, especially among younger, tech-savvy populations. Candidates can use social media platforms to rally supporters, provide information, and encourage voting.

Promotion of Political Awareness and Education
- Information Sharing: Social media helps spread political news, analysis, and discussions quickly, enabling the public to stay informed about current events, policies, and elections.
- Civic Engagement: Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube can promote political literacy by enabling users to access a variety of perspectives, commentaries, and educational content about the political process.

Accountability and Transparency
- Exposing Corruption and Injustice: Social media can shine a light on corruption, human rights abuses, or government overreach by giving people a platform to share information, videos, and evidence. The viral nature of social media can force authorities to address these issues.
- Whistleblower Protection: Social media platforms can serve as a tool for whistleblowers to expose government or corporate misconduct, as seen with various leaks and scandals in recent years.


Political Cons of Social Media

Misinformation and Fake News
- Spread of False Information: Social media has become a hotbed for the spread of misinformation, fake news, and conspiracy theories. False claims can go viral, influencing public opinion, swaying elections, or creating social unrest. The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election and the spread of COVID-19 misinformation are examples where misinformation spread through social media had serious consequences.
- Manipulation: Political actors, both domestic and foreign, can exploit social media platforms to manipulate public opinion, spread propaganda, or disrupt political processes. For example, Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election involved using social media to promote divisive content and influence voters.

Polarization and Echo Chambers
- Division and Polarization: Social media can amplify political polarization by exposing individuals primarily to content that aligns with their own views. This creates echo chambers where people are less likely to encounter opposing perspectives and may become more entrenched in their beliefs.
- Us vs. Them Mentality: Political debates on social media can become highly polarized, turning into "us vs. them" conflicts. This can lead to a more divisive and hostile political climate, where compromise and dialogue are harder to achieve.

Trolling, Harassment, and Cyberbullying
- Toxic Political Discourse: Political discussions on social media can often devolve into trolling, personal attacks, and harassment. This makes it difficult for people to engage in respectful debate and discourages some from participating in political discourse, especially marginalized groups.
- Silencing Dissent: High levels of harassment and online abuse can intimidate people into silence, particularly women, people of color, and political minorities, thereby stifling the diversity of political voices in online spaces.

Data Privacy and Political Manipulation
- Targeted Manipulation: The use of personal data to target individuals with tailored political ads can manipulate voter behavior. Cambridge Analytica, for instance, exploited Facebook data to target voters with highly personalized political messages, raising concerns about the ethics of political advertising and the potential for exploitation.
- Surveillance and Control: Governments and political parties can use social media data for surveillance, tracking opposition groups, and controlling dissent. In some authoritarian regimes, social media is monitored and censored to suppress opposition and maintain control.

Echoing Extremism and Hate Speech
- Radicalization: Social media platforms have been criticized for allowing extremist groups to recruit and spread their ideology. These platforms can provide a space for far-right, far-left, or terrorist groups to organize and share content, which can lead to radicalization or violent actions.
- Hate Speech: Despite platform guidelines, hate speech and incitement to violence can still thrive on social media. Politicians or groups may use these platforms to spread hate, xenophobia, and racism, which can undermine social cohesion and democracy.

Short-Term Focus and Soundbite Culture
- Superficial Politics: Social media's focus on short, easily digestible content often favors sensationalism and soundbites over nuanced, in-depth political discussion. Complex issues can be oversimplified, leading to shallow political discourse.
- Instant Gratification: Social media encourages a "24-hour news cycle," where politicians and political events are constantly scrutinized and commented on. This can lead to a focus on immediate reactions and controversies rather than long-term solutions and policy discussions.


Conclusion

Social media has dramatically transformed the political landscape by increasing engagement, transparency, and political activism, making it a powerful tool for democratic participation. However, its potential for spreading misinformation, exacerbating polarization, and facilitating manipulation poses serious risks. The challenge lies in harnessing the positive aspects of social media while addressing its negative consequences through regulation, responsible use, and the promotion of digital literacy.

Elections related legislation introduced so far in the 89th Legislative Session.

Topcs:  

Elections--Administration

Elections--Campaign Financing

Elections--Candidates

Elections--Early Voting

Elections--Election Officers

Elections--General

Elections--Initiative, Referendum & Recall

Elections--Judicial

Elections--Political Parties

Elections--Presidential

Elections--Primaries

Elections--Registration & Suffrage

Elections--School District

Elections--Voting Systems

Ask ChatGPT: What groups currently support the Republican and Democratic Parties?

What groups currently support the Republican party?

The Republican Party in the United States is supported by a diverse coalition of groups, each contributing to its broad base. Key supporters include:

Demographic Groups:

White Voters: Historically, the Republican Party has garnered strong support from White voters, particularly those without college degrees. In recent elections, this demographic has remained a significant portion of the party's base. Pew Research Center

Evangelical Christians: White evangelical Protestants are among the most loyal supporters of the Republican Party, often aligning with its conservative social policies. Wikipedia

Working-Class Voters: The party has made gains among working-class individuals, including those in rural areas and lower-income brackets, who are attracted to its economic policies and cultural values. Wikipedia

Political Factions:

Faith and Flag Conservatives: This group is highly conservative and religious, emphasizing traditional values and a strong national defense. They make up 23% of the Republican coalition. Pew Research Center

Committed Conservatives: Focused on pro-business policies, international trade, and limited government, this faction comprises 15% of Republicans and Republican leaners. Pew Research Center

Populist Right: Characterized by anti-immigrant sentiments and skepticism toward big businesses, this group also represents 23% of the Republican coalition. Pew Research Center

Interest Groups and Organizations:

Business and Industry Associations: The Republican Party traditionally receives substantial support from business groups advocating for free-market policies, lower taxes, and deregulation. Wikipedia

Conservative Think Tanks: Organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute play a significant role in shaping policy discussions and supporting Republican candidates. Wikipedia

Religious Organizations: Various religious groups, particularly evangelical Christian organizations, provide strong backing for the party's social policies. Wikipedia

This coalition reflects the Republican Party's broad base, encompassing a range of demographics, political factions, and interest groups united by shared values and policy preferences.


What groups currently support the Democratic party?

The Democratic Party in the United States is supported by a diverse coalition of groups, each contributing to its broad base. Key supporters include:

Demographic Groups:

African Americans: Historically, African Americans have been a cornerstone of the Democratic Party, consistently voting between 85% and 95% Democratic since the 1960s. Wikipedia

Hispanic Americans: Hispanic voters have traditionally leaned Democratic, though recent trends indicate a narrowing of the party's lead among this group. Gallup News

Asian Americans: Asian American communities, including Buddhists and Hindus, have shown strong support for Democratic candidates. For instance, in the 2020 presidential election, 73% of Buddhist voters and 77% of Hindu voters supported Joe Biden. Wikipedia

Young Voters: Americans aged 18 to 29 have tended to vote mainly for Democratic candidates in recent years, particularly those under the age of 30. Statista

Women: The Democratic Party has garnered stronger support among women than among men, with unmarried and divorced women more likely to vote for Democrats. Wikipedia

LGBTQ+ Individuals: The Democratic Party has strong support among LGBTQ+ voters, with 86% supporting Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. Wikipedia

Religious Groups:

Non-Religious Individuals: The Democratic Party receives strong support from non-religious voters, including atheists and agnostics. Wikipedia

Jewish Americans: Jewish Americans have historically leaned Democratic, contributing to the party's diverse base. Wikipedia

Geographic and Socioeconomic Factors:

Urban Residents: The Democratic Party's support is strongly positively correlated with increased population density, with higher support in urban areas compared to suburban and rural regions. Wikipedia

College Graduates: Individuals with higher levels of education, particularly college graduates, are more likely to support the Democratic Party. Wikipedia

This coalition reflects the Democratic Party's broad base, encompassing a range of demographics united by shared values and policy preferences.

Week 7 . . .

Right to Information
- For ChatGPT: 
- - Is there a right to gather information?
- - Is there a right to distribute information?
- - Is there a right to receive information?

Ad Fontes Media Chart
- Click here.

Jefferson v Hamilton
- National Gazette.
- Gazette of the United States.

Jefferson v Hamilton
- Federalists
- Democrat - Republicans

Party Eras

Parties as coalitions
- The Two Party System
- Party Federalism
- Winner Take All Elections.
- Proportional Representation.
- Democratic Coalition.
- Republican Coalition.

Three Faces of Political Parties
- organizations
- in the electorate
- in the government

From Jeremy Wallace, Texas politics reporter - Houston Chronicle

From my GOVT 2306 classes, read throug this. Let's talk about it in class.

There's a political logjam in Texas that's preventing ambitious Republicans from moving into more prominent roles.

Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Attorney General Ken Paxton, Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller and State Comptroller Glenn Hegar are all in their third terms, free of term limits and showing no public signs of moving on.

Add in two U.S. Senators who have been locked in for even longer, and you can see how other potential Republican statewide candidates have been mostly in a sustained holding pattern.

Some are starting to show their restlessness. Although Hegar hasn’t given any indication he is going anywhere, former state Sen. Don Huffines, a Dallas Republican, has been doing some polling to see how he might match up against him in a primary in 2026 or in an open field if Hegar doesn’t seek another four-year term.

Huffines didn’t have much to say about the polling when I talked to him this week, but he did tell me he’s keeping his options open for 2026.

Huffines, of course, already knows a thing or two about running statewide. In 2022, he spent more than $14 million against Abbott in a GOP primary but won just 12% of the vote.

In the poll, Huffines asked Republican voters about who they would choose in a match-up between him and Hegar in a race for state comptroller. In another series of questions, he asked voters their opinions on other Republicans who might run for comptroller if Hegar weren’t running. Some of the names he tested: state Sens. Kelly Hancock of Tarrant County and Paul Bettencourt of Houston and Texas Railroad Commissioner Christi Craddick, a Midland native.

To be clear, none of those Republicans have given any public hints about running for the office. And in Hegar’s case, he’s sitting on $10 million in his campaign account for another potential run.

Another position that could open up is attorney general. Paxton has said he is looking into running against Cornyn in a 2026 GOP primary, which would open his seat up for competition.

Meanwhile, Abbott and Patrick have already said they are seeking reelection, leaving any Republican eyeing those posts with the options of waiting it out or taking on an incumbent with a large financial war chest.

The lack of movement at the top of the ballot for all the statewide offices over the last decade has been a little unusual for Texas, said University of Houston political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus. Through most of the state’s history, there has been a lot of churn at the top of state government.

But two key things have changed that. From the 1970s to the 1990s, Democrats and Republicans were knocking each other out of office regularly. But since the mid-1990s, Democrats haven’t been able to win any statewide offices, meaning the biggest threat for Republicans have been the primaries.

Second, the governor's office has been transformed over the years in a way that's created a logjam at the very top of the state government. It was in the 1970s when Texas shifted from two-year terms to four-year terms for governor. And more recently, Gov. Rick Perry helped consolidate power and make the office more appealing to hold onto. Before Perry took office in 2000, no Texas governor ever served eight consecutive years. But Perry served 14 years, becoming the longest serving governor in Texas history. Abbott, who succeeded him in 2014 has already become the second longest serving and if he wins again in 2026, will be on course to surpass Perry’s tenure.

“Perry made the governorship worth having,” said Rottinghaus, who last year published his book “Rick Perry. A Political Life.”

Israel Ludlow

- Click here. 

Dear AI Overview

"Agents of chaos" refers to individuals or entities that deliberately create disorder, disruption, or confusion within a system or situation, often with the intention of destabilizing the status quo, sometimes for personal gain or simply to sow chaos for the sake of it; essentially, people who actively cause mayhem or unrest.

Key points about "agents of chaos":

Intentional disruption: They actively work to disrupt existing structures or norms, not just passively observing chaos.

No clear motive: While sometimes their actions may be driven by a desire for change, often their motivations are unclear or simply to create chaos for its own sake.

Figurative usage: The term is often used figuratively in popular culture to describe individuals who deliberately stir up controversy or spread misinformation online.

Example usage:

"Some people consider Elon Musk to be an 'agent of chaos' because of his frequent provocative tweets and unpredictable business ventures."

"The political group spread false rumors online, acting as agents of chaos to undermine the upcoming election."