As much as Houston has tried to eradicate them, pockets of history still survive. The Sixth Ward claims to be the city's oldest continually inhabited neighborhood and showcases a large number of older homes, some in good condition, some not. The area has a character unique in the city and some of its residents have organized to preserve that character.
But it's proximity to downtown has made it attractive to newer residents who would rather tear the older structures down--or remove them elsewhere--and build from scratch. These individuals have also organized to fight for their freedom to do with their property as they see fit. The character of the community is less important than their individual freedom.
The groups in question are The Old Sixth Ward Neighborhood Association and the Sixth Ward Property Owners Association. The former is fighting to preserve the older homes in the neighborhood while the other opposes it.
It's a classic confrontation, and one that has played itself out in Houston--a free enterprise city--for decades, if not since its inception.
Some related items:
- Ban on demolition in Old Sixth Ward could be permanent.
- The Sixth Ward and the Planning Commission.
- Preservation Sanity
- Houston, Yes!
Friday, April 27, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The End of an Era
Southern influence in Congress appears to be waining.
During the days of strict seniority the South ruled the roost, but the rise of two party competition has cut the length of southern members' congressional tenures, and the region's shift to the Republican Party has put them at a disadvantage now that Democrats are the majority Party.
The South can no longer check policies favored by the rest of the country, or push policies opposed by them.
Consequences?
During the days of strict seniority the South ruled the roost, but the rise of two party competition has cut the length of southern members' congressional tenures, and the region's shift to the Republican Party has put them at a disadvantage now that Democrats are the majority Party.
The South can no longer check policies favored by the rest of the country, or push policies opposed by them.
Consequences?
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Time Warner and the Postal Regulatory Commission
Postal rates will be going up soon, not just for first class postage, but for periodicals as well. But while the rates for large circulation magazines are only going up 10%, those for smaller magazines are going up 30%.
According to this story, Time Warner made the recommendations to the Postal Regulatory Commission who then used them to base their proposed changes to the Postal Services Board of Governors without public input.
Given that Time Warner owns People, Sports Illustrated, and a host of other top selling magazines, it certainly has an interest in keeping its postal rates down, but by working to raise that of its smaller competitors (allegedly) is it using insider connections to make the playing field uneven?
Is this agency capture?
According to this story, Time Warner made the recommendations to the Postal Regulatory Commission who then used them to base their proposed changes to the Postal Services Board of Governors without public input.
Given that Time Warner owns People, Sports Illustrated, and a host of other top selling magazines, it certainly has an interest in keeping its postal rates down, but by working to raise that of its smaller competitors (allegedly) is it using insider connections to make the playing field uneven?
Is this agency capture?
Quagmire
Given that many have been equating the current Iraq war with its predecessor in Vietnam and using the term "quagmire" to describe it, it's appropriate to point out that the journalist who came up with the term originally was killed in a car accident yesterday.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Manvel Forum Questions
FYI. Here's a list of the questions that were written out for the candidates at last week's forum in Manvel:
Questions for Mayoral and City Council candidates:
- If the developers did not get TIRZ do you think they would not come here?
- Considering the future growth of Manvel and the ability of an area to control votes, how do you feel about single member districts?
- Do you believe the city will really realize a significant tax increase in the near term given most developments planned now are set up with MUD’s and TIRZ financing?
- Where do you see the City of Manvel’s growth being in 5 or 10 years? Why will citizens want to continue living here?
- Would you support a Tax Increment Refinancing Zone for a major development and if so why do you feel a TIRZ would help our city?
- In the past sub-divider paid all expenses to develop their property and recouped their expenses and profit from the buyers. Why do we need TIRZ?
- What are your plans public safety including police, fire and EMS with rapid growth facing Manvel.
- Is anything going to be done to remove the dirt put in the area surrounding Chocolate Bayou near the Naked Rib?
- How much in donations have you received from developers?
- Do you think at this time it is appropriate to have our mayor active in the daily running of city hall or would you promote the hiring of a full time city administrator if elected?
- If you do not win do you plan to continue to get involved with the city and if so what do you plan to do?
- Is enough being received from billing to pay the costs of the water and sewer system to include operating and loan costs? If not, how much is the Manvel taxpayer paying to make up the shortfall?
- Are you willing to put all the time and effort into your commitment?
Why are you running for a public office? Do you fee you or the community will benefit?
Question for Alvin School Board candidates:
- Can senior citizens be allowed to use the Manvel High School pool?
- Would you support doing away with TAKS testing for high school, junior high and elementary grades?
- Why do we have so many expensive administrators?
- I understand the second phase of Manvel High School was to start in January of the year. What is the delay?
Questions for Mayoral and City Council candidates:
- If the developers did not get TIRZ do you think they would not come here?
- Considering the future growth of Manvel and the ability of an area to control votes, how do you feel about single member districts?
- Do you believe the city will really realize a significant tax increase in the near term given most developments planned now are set up with MUD’s and TIRZ financing?
- Where do you see the City of Manvel’s growth being in 5 or 10 years? Why will citizens want to continue living here?
- Would you support a Tax Increment Refinancing Zone for a major development and if so why do you feel a TIRZ would help our city?
- In the past sub-divider paid all expenses to develop their property and recouped their expenses and profit from the buyers. Why do we need TIRZ?
- What are your plans public safety including police, fire and EMS with rapid growth facing Manvel.
- Is anything going to be done to remove the dirt put in the area surrounding Chocolate Bayou near the Naked Rib?
- How much in donations have you received from developers?
- Do you think at this time it is appropriate to have our mayor active in the daily running of city hall or would you promote the hiring of a full time city administrator if elected?
- If you do not win do you plan to continue to get involved with the city and if so what do you plan to do?
- Is enough being received from billing to pay the costs of the water and sewer system to include operating and loan costs? If not, how much is the Manvel taxpayer paying to make up the shortfall?
- Are you willing to put all the time and effort into your commitment?
Why are you running for a public office? Do you fee you or the community will benefit?
Question for Alvin School Board candidates:
- Can senior citizens be allowed to use the Manvel High School pool?
- Would you support doing away with TAKS testing for high school, junior high and elementary grades?
- Why do we have so many expensive administrators?
- I understand the second phase of Manvel High School was to start in January of the year. What is the delay?
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Information Lockdown
Apparently that's the official terminology for how an executive agency attempts to limit the damage that bad news can cause were it to get out. First step: Make sure it dosn't get out. Make sure the media doesn't get a hold of the story.
Here's the opening paragraph from today's NYT story on the on going story of the aftermath of Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan from friendly fire:
Here's the opening paragraph from today's NYT story on the on going story of the aftermath of Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan from friendly fire:
Within hours of Cpl. Pat Tillman’s death, the Army was engaged in an information lockdown. Phone and Internet connections were cut off at a base in Afghanistan. Guards
were posted on a wounded platoon mate of his. A captain ordered a noncommissioned officer to burn Corporal Tillman’s uniform.
A New Scandal
I'll try to unpack the relationships between the people listed in this story later, but a scandal may be brewing in the Education Department.
Whenever a government creates a program that mandates the purchase of an item, favors can be diverted to selected individuals who create that item. As long as the other party is not in a position to investigate--not in control of Congress--these things can stay hidden. Such is not the case, and is a further reminder of why elections, like 2006's, are so consequential.
By the way, note the role of the Justice Department in investigating this. Does independence matter?
Whenever a government creates a program that mandates the purchase of an item, favors can be diverted to selected individuals who create that item. As long as the other party is not in a position to investigate--not in control of Congress--these things can stay hidden. Such is not the case, and is a further reminder of why elections, like 2006's, are so consequential.
By the way, note the role of the Justice Department in investigating this. Does independence matter?
The Attorney General and the Unitary Executive
Slate magazine has a habit of turning conventional wisdom on its head by presenting intriguing arguments why a consensus appraisals of events are wrong.
Here Dahlia Lithwick claims that Alberto Gonzalez--who most argued did horribly in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee--actually performed admirably, given the job he was sent to do.
She argues that he was not there to defend his actions in the firing of the attorneys, but to prop up the unitary executive theory by--between the lines--claiming that Congress has few powers to compel the executive branch to do anything, much less oversee how it handles personnel issues like who gets to hold on to a job in the Justice Department.
Here's a quote:
Here Dahlia Lithwick claims that Alberto Gonzalez--who most argued did horribly in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee--actually performed admirably, given the job he was sent to do.
She argues that he was not there to defend his actions in the firing of the attorneys, but to prop up the unitary executive theory by--between the lines--claiming that Congress has few powers to compel the executive branch to do anything, much less oversee how it handles personnel issues like who gets to hold on to a job in the Justice Department.
Here's a quote:
Gonzales' failure to even mount a defense; his posture ofPresident Bush's support of his testimony later in the day were therefore not the result of delusion, but cunning. Critics of the attorney general don't understand that they are playing different games under different sets of rules. . Perhaps the Senate should enlarge its focus beyond this simple personnel matter and look at the larger issue of expansive presidential power.
barely tolerating congressional inquiries; his refusal to
concede that he owed the Senate any explanation or
any evidence; his refusal to even accept that he bore
some burden of proof—all of it tots up to a masterful
display of the perfect contempt felt by the Bush
executive branch for this Congress and its pretensions
of oversight. In the plainest sense, Gonzales elevated
the Bush legal doctrine of "Because I said so" into a
public spectacle.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Manvel Candidates Forum
Last night we (ACC) co-hosted along with the Alvin-Manvel Chamber of Commerce a forum for the candidates for Manvel's mayor, two city council positions, two Alvin Independent School District positions and two positions in for the Brazoria Navigation District.
I have opinions on which candidates did better than others but will hold my tongue in order to stay friends with everyone. As a general rule of thumb though, it's a good idea to prepare and have things to say prior to arrival.
I've posted a link to a voice recording of the forum on my class home page. Any locals, or anyone else interested in the concerns of a small Texas town undergoing tremendous change might find it worthwhile. The tape cut out after an hour and a half for some reason though, so the last hour was not recorded.
For those unaware of Manvel's existence (you know who you are) it's small in population, huge in area, and strategically located at the crossroads of two under-developed, but developing, highways 20 miles south of Houston. Major national developers are streaming in because Houston's expansion has been mostly to the north and west, and is close to being tapped out. The east has not witnessed much growth because Galveston Bay, the Port of Houston, and/or the chemical plants are in the way. This leaves the south as the only option available, and the recent growth has been significant.
Manvel is either the beneficiary or the victim depending on your attitude towards growth, and its inevitability was the primary topic of the forum.
Decisions made now will condition the city's future. Seldom do people have the opportunity to have lasting impacts on their community's future, but that's what the current leadership of Manvel can do. How much leeway will the developers have? How large will the lot sizes be? How large must the street be? What impact will all this have on drainage? What tax rates will be assessed? How might the city's charter be altered to compensate for the increased size? What financing structure works best?
There's no going back once these decisions have been made. The current mayor, Delores Martin, stated that Manvel's population may triple in the next 5-10 years due to the subdivisions now being built and planned.
Heady days indeed. And a great case study of a community in transition.
More to come.
I have opinions on which candidates did better than others but will hold my tongue in order to stay friends with everyone. As a general rule of thumb though, it's a good idea to prepare and have things to say prior to arrival.
I've posted a link to a voice recording of the forum on my class home page. Any locals, or anyone else interested in the concerns of a small Texas town undergoing tremendous change might find it worthwhile. The tape cut out after an hour and a half for some reason though, so the last hour was not recorded.
For those unaware of Manvel's existence (you know who you are) it's small in population, huge in area, and strategically located at the crossroads of two under-developed, but developing, highways 20 miles south of Houston. Major national developers are streaming in because Houston's expansion has been mostly to the north and west, and is close to being tapped out. The east has not witnessed much growth because Galveston Bay, the Port of Houston, and/or the chemical plants are in the way. This leaves the south as the only option available, and the recent growth has been significant.
Manvel is either the beneficiary or the victim depending on your attitude towards growth, and its inevitability was the primary topic of the forum.
Decisions made now will condition the city's future. Seldom do people have the opportunity to have lasting impacts on their community's future, but that's what the current leadership of Manvel can do. How much leeway will the developers have? How large will the lot sizes be? How large must the street be? What impact will all this have on drainage? What tax rates will be assessed? How might the city's charter be altered to compensate for the increased size? What financing structure works best?
There's no going back once these decisions have been made. The current mayor, Delores Martin, stated that Manvel's population may triple in the next 5-10 years due to the subdivisions now being built and planned.
Heady days indeed. And a great case study of a community in transition.
More to come.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Civil Rights and the Fetus/Child
This post bring to light a distinction that may become more prominent in the wake of the Supreme Court's abortion ruling, and its one the social conservatives have been angling for.
What is the legal status of a fetus?
I can't recall the last time I heard a pro-lifer say the word "fetus" for an obvious reason. If the "entity" is called a child then it can be subject to protections, notably those guaranteed in the 14th Amendment. To treat a person in utero differently than one that has been born would violate their civil rights. But this could also lead to unforeseen consequences since damages to the fetus/person would carry the same legal weight as that to the rest of us.
A potential legal field day me-thinks.
What is the legal status of a fetus?
I can't recall the last time I heard a pro-lifer say the word "fetus" for an obvious reason. If the "entity" is called a child then it can be subject to protections, notably those guaranteed in the 14th Amendment. To treat a person in utero differently than one that has been born would violate their civil rights. But this could also lead to unforeseen consequences since damages to the fetus/person would carry the same legal weight as that to the rest of us.
A potential legal field day me-thinks.
Creating Conventional Wisdom
Here's a take on a take on how stories become conventional wisdom.
It relates to previsous discussions we have had in 2301 concerning why certain stories become newsworthy.
It relates to previsous discussions we have had in 2301 concerning why certain stories become newsworthy.
Are Funeral Sanctuary Laws Constitutional?
The post below mentions efforts that states have adopted to limit the ability of Pastor Fred Phelps and his family to disturb the solemnity of funerals--especially military ones.
The pastor believes that American soldiers in Iraq died because of God's condemnation of the acceptance of homosexuality in the United States. He makes his case known, loudly, as close as he can get to the funeral services.
Considering that this is not just free speech, but the free expression of religious belief (let's assume his opinions are sincere), the Constitution seems to be on his side. The Supreme Court may decide that the greater interest of society in preserving the dignity of funeral services is more important than individual free speech and free expression, but then again it may not.
There is no right to dignified funerals guaranteed in the Constitution.
He may be labelled a public nuisance, or argued to be causing public disruptions that undermine public order, but that can apply to many other public events as well, and may justify an expansion of governmental authority beyond what is prudent.
Is Pastor Phelps another price we pay for living in a free society?
The First Amendment Center Weighs in on the topic here.
Here's a news item about a Kansas law against funeral picketing.
Shirley Phelps explains the picketing.
The pastor believes that American soldiers in Iraq died because of God's condemnation of the acceptance of homosexuality in the United States. He makes his case known, loudly, as close as he can get to the funeral services.
Considering that this is not just free speech, but the free expression of religious belief (let's assume his opinions are sincere), the Constitution seems to be on his side. The Supreme Court may decide that the greater interest of society in preserving the dignity of funeral services is more important than individual free speech and free expression, but then again it may not.
There is no right to dignified funerals guaranteed in the Constitution.
He may be labelled a public nuisance, or argued to be causing public disruptions that undermine public order, but that can apply to many other public events as well, and may justify an expansion of governmental authority beyond what is prudent.
Is Pastor Phelps another price we pay for living in a free society?
The First Amendment Center Weighs in on the topic here.
Here's a news item about a Kansas law against funeral picketing.
Shirley Phelps explains the picketing.
Roving Wiretaps
The Texas Senate wants to expand the application of a warrant to new technologies. The justification is homeland security, but it also applies to crimes not related to terrorism.
A necessary update or leading edge of a police state?
A necessary update or leading edge of a police state?
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Seismic Shift
That's what the mainstream news media calls the just released Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on the Partial Birth Abortion Act.
A few thoughts:
- For social conservatives, this justifies the Bush Presidency, no matter what else happens because it demonstrates the impact of the replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor with Samuel Alito.
- It shows that Anthony Kennedy is indeed the most powerful person in the U.S. and will be until there's another replacement on the court that alters its composition. Kennedy is the reason the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant and partial birth abortion has been outlawed. I'd expect him to be the 5th vote on more decisions.
- The line between the liberals and conservatives seems to be hardening.
- This may also be a consequence of the reduction of the number of women on the court--down to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
- Social conservatives will see opportunities to pass further limits on the abortion procedures, but...
- will have to be careful not to awaken moderates who favor access to abortion, but are not strong supporters of it. Remembers that Roe v. Wade was a rallying cry for the conservative movement. This could rally the other side.
Stay tuned.
A few thoughts:
- For social conservatives, this justifies the Bush Presidency, no matter what else happens because it demonstrates the impact of the replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor with Samuel Alito.
- It shows that Anthony Kennedy is indeed the most powerful person in the U.S. and will be until there's another replacement on the court that alters its composition. Kennedy is the reason the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant and partial birth abortion has been outlawed. I'd expect him to be the 5th vote on more decisions.
- The line between the liberals and conservatives seems to be hardening.
- This may also be a consequence of the reduction of the number of women on the court--down to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
- Social conservatives will see opportunities to pass further limits on the abortion procedures, but...
- will have to be careful not to awaken moderates who favor access to abortion, but are not strong supporters of it. Remembers that Roe v. Wade was a rallying cry for the conservative movement. This could rally the other side.
Stay tuned.
MySpace RIP's
Another use of the web.
People posting tributes to their friends who died in Virginia Tech on their MySpace pages.
Touching, and a bit eerie.
People posting tributes to their friends who died in Virginia Tech on their MySpace pages.
Touching, and a bit eerie.
Free Hate Speech
This may be the touchiest aspect of free speech. Are we free to articulate hatred? It's easy to say yes, but then you have to deal with people like this that make it very difficult to side with the First Amendment, though somehow you know you must.
story from the daily dish.
story from the daily dish.
Equal Protection and the District Attorney
While we cover civil rights in 2301 over the next two weeks, we should touch on recent cases involving the prosecution of--or attempts to prosecute--individuals that may have been fueled by racial anymosity.
The first fits the pattern we have grown to expect. 14 year old Shaquanda Cotton pushed a hall monitor in school and received an indeterminate sentence in a juvenile facility. The case drew national attention because she's African-American, white children had been given lesser sentences for greater crimes, her mother was an outspoken activist in the community, and Paris, Texas has a nasty racial history that includes public lynchings. Her prosecution was held by some to be intimidation by the white legal system of the African-American population.
The second does not fit this pattern. It's the accusation of rape against members of the Duke lacrosse team that was recently dropped by the district attorney, who has also since apologized. Critics of the district attorney argued that he drove the case forward in order to get the votes of the black community in Durham. Commentators have also pointed out how easy it was for the prosecution and the media to persuade the public that these people were guilty. Classic stereotypes of privileged rich kids out of control were readilty accepted. Was this reverse racism?
I posted below about the efforts of an interested bystander (Robert Johnson) to uncover the truth behind the Duke case by persistently posting blogs about it. Not surprisingly, the same thing occurred in the Shaquanda Cotton case. Here's the blog.
The web is turning out to be an effective instrument in allowing criminal defendants and their supporters to state their case.
The first fits the pattern we have grown to expect. 14 year old Shaquanda Cotton pushed a hall monitor in school and received an indeterminate sentence in a juvenile facility. The case drew national attention because she's African-American, white children had been given lesser sentences for greater crimes, her mother was an outspoken activist in the community, and Paris, Texas has a nasty racial history that includes public lynchings. Her prosecution was held by some to be intimidation by the white legal system of the African-American population.
The second does not fit this pattern. It's the accusation of rape against members of the Duke lacrosse team that was recently dropped by the district attorney, who has also since apologized. Critics of the district attorney argued that he drove the case forward in order to get the votes of the black community in Durham. Commentators have also pointed out how easy it was for the prosecution and the media to persuade the public that these people were guilty. Classic stereotypes of privileged rich kids out of control were readilty accepted. Was this reverse racism?
I posted below about the efforts of an interested bystander (Robert Johnson) to uncover the truth behind the Duke case by persistently posting blogs about it. Not surprisingly, the same thing occurred in the Shaquanda Cotton case. Here's the blog.
The web is turning out to be an effective instrument in allowing criminal defendants and their supporters to state their case.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Pulitzer Prizes
They were announced today.
If we have time we may go over them. I'd like to call attention to the prize given to Boston Globe reporter Charles Savage for uncovering President Bush's expansive use of presidential signing statements to effectively change the meaning of the bills Congress presents him for a signature. It has turned into an effective way to expand presidential power, though is argued by some to be potentially unconstitutional.
How soon before awards are given for web sites?
If we have time we may go over them. I'd like to call attention to the prize given to Boston Globe reporter Charles Savage for uncovering President Bush's expansive use of presidential signing statements to effectively change the meaning of the bills Congress presents him for a signature. It has turned into an effective way to expand presidential power, though is argued by some to be potentially unconstitutional.
How soon before awards are given for web sites?
Tragedy and Public Policymaking
When one tries to make sense of existing public policy, especially when it seems confusing, it is worth considering whether the establishment of that policy was motivated by a response to a tragedy or scandal.
Several shocking examples of child abuse decades back led to the child abuse policy. The murder of Laura Smithers led to similar legislation and additional attention to child abduction. The Enron scandal led to Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, and of course 9/11 led to substantive changes in airport security.
It should not be surprising then if the shooting spree in Virgina Tech leads to changes in gun policy, but the fight now seems to be what the nature of that change is likely to be.
Not long after the tragedy began, thanks to the speed of the internet, gun control policy became the dominant policy issue debated. Each side attempted to spin it in a manner beneficial to it's side.
Gun rights advocates claimed that this incident proves that gun laws must be lenient enough to allow people to purchase and conceal weapons that they can use to defend themselves, while gun control advocates stated that this shows that guns are too difficult to obtain. This is called framing--or spin. It has a bad connotation of course, but it is simply a reflection of the complexity of the issues we face.
Now, is this the appropriate time for legislatures to evaluate existing gun control laws, or should they hold off? Is this a time when the inertia built into the American constitutional system impedes the ability of the public to protect itself, or does it slow down the process sensibly so that bad policy is not passed?
Several shocking examples of child abuse decades back led to the child abuse policy. The murder of Laura Smithers led to similar legislation and additional attention to child abduction. The Enron scandal led to Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, and of course 9/11 led to substantive changes in airport security.
It should not be surprising then if the shooting spree in Virgina Tech leads to changes in gun policy, but the fight now seems to be what the nature of that change is likely to be.
Not long after the tragedy began, thanks to the speed of the internet, gun control policy became the dominant policy issue debated. Each side attempted to spin it in a manner beneficial to it's side.
Gun rights advocates claimed that this incident proves that gun laws must be lenient enough to allow people to purchase and conceal weapons that they can use to defend themselves, while gun control advocates stated that this shows that guns are too difficult to obtain. This is called framing--or spin. It has a bad connotation of course, but it is simply a reflection of the complexity of the issues we face.
Now, is this the appropriate time for legislatures to evaluate existing gun control laws, or should they hold off? Is this a time when the inertia built into the American constitutional system impedes the ability of the public to protect itself, or does it slow down the process sensibly so that bad policy is not passed?
Monday, April 16, 2007
Investigative Blogger
According to this story, one of the factors which led to the deterioration of the case against the Duke University lacrosse players was the persistence of Robert D. Johnson, a history professor from Brooklyn College.
Soon after the case began he began a blog (Durham-in-Wonderland) which he used to explore questions he developed concerning the merits of the case. His discoveries apparently guided the defendant's lawyers as they developed their defense.
Should we expect more of the same? Can weblog be effective tools for private citizens to bring attention to criminal cases they find problematic?
Soon after the case began he began a blog (Durham-in-Wonderland) which he used to explore questions he developed concerning the merits of the case. His discoveries apparently guided the defendant's lawyers as they developed their defense.
Should we expect more of the same? Can weblog be effective tools for private citizens to bring attention to criminal cases they find problematic?
Sunday, April 15, 2007
The Imus of 1775
I have a bad habit of assuming that the founding generation discussed politics at a high level across the board. J.L. Bell at Boston 1775 proves me wrong.
Candidate Forums
For any in the vicinity of Manvel and Alvin in the next couple of weeks we have candidate debates for elections in each city. The elections are scheduled for Saturday May 12.
This coming Thursday April 19 in the new Manvel High School on Highway 6 from 6pm - 8:30pm the we will hear from the following candidates
Mayor
Ira Stevenson Van Scoyoc
Delores M. Martin (Incumbent)
City Council Position #3
Gary Garnett (Incumbent)
Melody Lynn Hanson
City Council Position #5
Dwight Harrison
Connie Aucoin
J.T. (Buddy) Williams (Incumbent)
Alvin Independent School District Position 4
J.S. Hensler (incumbent)
Mike Lansford
Alvin Independent School District Position 5
Eddie Martinez
And on Tuesday May 1, in the Texas Room here on our lovely Alvin Community College campus
City Council District B
Kathleen Holton
City Council District C
Jim Landriault
City Council At Large Position 1
Bob Dillman
J. D. MacGregor
Ramiro Mondragon
and once again
Alvin Independent School District Position 4
J.S. Hensler (incumbent)
Mike Lansford
Alvin Independent School District Position 5
Eddie Martinez
Since AISD covers the cities of Alvin and Manvel, these candidates have been invited to both events.
Among the issues we expect covered are issues related to the growth projected for the local area, but this will depend on who comes and what questions they bring with them.
This coming Thursday April 19 in the new Manvel High School on Highway 6 from 6pm - 8:30pm the we will hear from the following candidates
Mayor
Ira Stevenson Van Scoyoc
Delores M. Martin (Incumbent)
City Council Position #3
Gary Garnett (Incumbent)
Melody Lynn Hanson
City Council Position #5
Dwight Harrison
Connie Aucoin
J.T. (Buddy) Williams (Incumbent)
Alvin Independent School District Position 4
J.S. Hensler (incumbent)
Mike Lansford
Alvin Independent School District Position 5
Eddie Martinez
And on Tuesday May 1, in the Texas Room here on our lovely Alvin Community College campus
City Council District B
Kathleen Holton
City Council District C
Jim Landriault
City Council At Large Position 1
Bob Dillman
J. D. MacGregor
Ramiro Mondragon
and once again
Alvin Independent School District Position 4
J.S. Hensler (incumbent)
Mike Lansford
Alvin Independent School District Position 5
Eddie Martinez
Since AISD covers the cities of Alvin and Manvel, these candidates have been invited to both events.
Among the issues we expect covered are issues related to the growth projected for the local area, but this will depend on who comes and what questions they bring with them.
Free Speech and the Presidential Forum
Can members of the president's staff lawfully remove from a presidential forum people who they believe may be disruptive because they had antiwar bumper stickers on their car when they arrived?
Here's the story.
It involves first amendment protections on the one hand and public order issues on the other. The caveat is that this was not an actual disruption, but the prevention of possible disruption by the inclusion in the hall of people with obviously different points of view. This will be good material for my 2301's as we get into civil liberties this week.
As an aside: How would Scalia and Roberts rule on this question. Remember that they argued that the state of Massachusetts lacked standing to sue the EPA because global warming posed a potential threat, not one that has caused any real harm to the state at the moment. Would they rule that for the ejectees since they did not in fact cause a disruption?
Here's the story.
It involves first amendment protections on the one hand and public order issues on the other. The caveat is that this was not an actual disruption, but the prevention of possible disruption by the inclusion in the hall of people with obviously different points of view. This will be good material for my 2301's as we get into civil liberties this week.
As an aside: How would Scalia and Roberts rule on this question. Remember that they argued that the state of Massachusetts lacked standing to sue the EPA because global warming posed a potential threat, not one that has caused any real harm to the state at the moment. Would they rule that for the ejectees since they did not in fact cause a disruption?
re-de-reg?
In local news applicable to our upcoming coverage in 2302-4 on economic policymaking, the chron has a story covering recent criticisms by Houston mayor Bill White and State Representative Sylvester Turner about the consequences of electricity deregulation in the state for poor people specifically, and the state as a whole in general.
Promises of assistance for poor consumers who tend to live in older, less efficient homes has yet to materialize and the state now has per kilowatt electricity rates higher than the national average.
At one point the state regulated the electricity market and traded monopoly rights for loss of industry control over prices charged to consumers. Free market proponents argued that these arrangements stifled innovation by locking in existing technology. Change and innovation only occur in a competitive market. Competition also lead to lower prices because consumers will choose to buy electricity from producers who provide the best service at the lowest price.
Critics argue that this has not occurred in Texas. White is quoted in the story sating that we now have two monopolies in an unregulated market. He does not go on to say that price fixing is now occurring, but its a possibility that Adam Smith raised. In his Wealth of Nations, which argued for the virtues of unregulated markets, he cautioned that businessmen cannot met with each other without out talking about price fixing.
Expect other critics to be less cautious.
For more info on electricity deregulation click the following:
- an overview of the politics in opensecrets.org.
- a critical appraisal of recent proposals in California by the Mies Institute.
- criticism by Public Citizen.
- the home page of Texas Electricity Choice.
- a wikipedia entry on deregulation in Texas.
It worth noting that the forum was hosted by ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) a non-profit group which advocates for the poor. The fight over regulating electricity is a good illustration of the interest group conflict. Industry groups vs. community groups.
Promises of assistance for poor consumers who tend to live in older, less efficient homes has yet to materialize and the state now has per kilowatt electricity rates higher than the national average.
At one point the state regulated the electricity market and traded monopoly rights for loss of industry control over prices charged to consumers. Free market proponents argued that these arrangements stifled innovation by locking in existing technology. Change and innovation only occur in a competitive market. Competition also lead to lower prices because consumers will choose to buy electricity from producers who provide the best service at the lowest price.
Critics argue that this has not occurred in Texas. White is quoted in the story sating that we now have two monopolies in an unregulated market. He does not go on to say that price fixing is now occurring, but its a possibility that Adam Smith raised. In his Wealth of Nations, which argued for the virtues of unregulated markets, he cautioned that businessmen cannot met with each other without out talking about price fixing.
Expect other critics to be less cautious.
For more info on electricity deregulation click the following:
- an overview of the politics in opensecrets.org.
- a critical appraisal of recent proposals in California by the Mies Institute.
- criticism by Public Citizen.
- the home page of Texas Electricity Choice.
- a wikipedia entry on deregulation in Texas.
It worth noting that the forum was hosted by ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) a non-profit group which advocates for the poor. The fight over regulating electricity is a good illustration of the interest group conflict. Industry groups vs. community groups.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
The Osprey
Today's New York Times provides the latest on a terrific example of the policy consequences of the sub governments that develop around pet projects.
It's the V-22 Osprey, a tiltrotor aircraft that the leadership of the Marines has been hoping to build for over 20 years. It's about to see it's first action in war this September.
Why the wait? It has a nasty habit of killing people, including 26 marines, in test flights. Opponents to the program included Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney under Bush 1, who tried four times to cut it from the military budget.
Why has it survived?
Here's the key quote form the NYT story: "But, from 1989 to 1992, Mr. Cheney was beaten back by Congress. Work on the project — the Boeing Company and Bell Helicopter Textron are the main contractors — is spread across 40 states and 2,000 subcontractors, giving the V-22 broad support. More than 100 members of Congress even formed a Tiltrotor Technology Coalition to protect it."
The project also gained influential supporters at the highest level of the Marines. People whose positions of leadership may be based on continuation of the project.
It's the V-22 Osprey, a tiltrotor aircraft that the leadership of the Marines has been hoping to build for over 20 years. It's about to see it's first action in war this September.
Why the wait? It has a nasty habit of killing people, including 26 marines, in test flights. Opponents to the program included Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney under Bush 1, who tried four times to cut it from the military budget.
Why has it survived?
Here's the key quote form the NYT story: "But, from 1989 to 1992, Mr. Cheney was beaten back by Congress. Work on the project — the Boeing Company and Bell Helicopter Textron are the main contractors — is spread across 40 states and 2,000 subcontractors, giving the V-22 broad support. More than 100 members of Congress even formed a Tiltrotor Technology Coalition to protect it."
The project also gained influential supporters at the highest level of the Marines. People whose positions of leadership may be based on continuation of the project.
Friday, April 13, 2007
It's the latest web sensation.
You can let the entire world know what you are doing right now . . . I mean now . . . no now.
If you can make them care, but maybe they do.
You can let the entire world know what you are doing right now . . . I mean now . . . no now.
If you can make them care, but maybe they do.
The Religious Viewpoint Anti-Discrimination Act
The Texas House State Affairs Committee has begun hearing testimony on a bill that "would guarantee youngsters the freedom to express their religious beliefs at school."
The Religious Viewpoint Anti-Discrimination Act was written by Warren Chisum and Charlie Howard and has been sponsored by a handful of House members including our own Mike O'Day and Dennis Bonnen.
The bill is a response to allegations that students in K-12 schools have been punished for expressing their religious beliefs. Governor Perry has endorsed it and stated that it simply would allow for more discussion: "Discussion does not lead to indoctrination. Rather, it leads to open-mindedness and personal and educational betterment."
A blogger at the Chron wonders that since free expression (a civil liberty my 2301's will be covering shortly) is already guaranteed by the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, is the bill really necessary? Howard states that it is because it will codify into Texas law what the courts have already mandated.
The Religious Viewpoint Anti-Discrimination Act was written by Warren Chisum and Charlie Howard and has been sponsored by a handful of House members including our own Mike O'Day and Dennis Bonnen.
The bill is a response to allegations that students in K-12 schools have been punished for expressing their religious beliefs. Governor Perry has endorsed it and stated that it simply would allow for more discussion: "Discussion does not lead to indoctrination. Rather, it leads to open-mindedness and personal and educational betterment."
A blogger at the Chron wonders that since free expression (a civil liberty my 2301's will be covering shortly) is already guaranteed by the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, is the bill really necessary? Howard states that it is because it will codify into Texas law what the courts have already mandated.
When a Lease is not a Lease
its a service agreement.
Who cares? The Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation and the city of Houston.
If a lease is a lease, the center has to vacate property rented to it by the city for 99 years in the early 1960s. If its a service agreement, they dont.
We'll get into the politics of this later. Use this Chron blog entry as a starting point to catch up on the story.
Its a classic big v little guy match up.
Who cares? The Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation and the city of Houston.
If a lease is a lease, the center has to vacate property rented to it by the city for 99 years in the early 1960s. If its a service agreement, they dont.
We'll get into the politics of this later. Use this Chron blog entry as a starting point to catch up on the story.
Its a classic big v little guy match up.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The Revolving Door / Iron Triangle
In response to a challenge, here are a few websites that provide information about what is called the "revolving door" between government and industry.
- SourceWatch
- OpenSecrets
- RevolvingDoor
- Public Citizen
There's more available, but these seem to do a good job of outlining actual examples of people shifting from positions in Congress, the executive branch and interest groups. The connection between interest groups and the executive branch is agency capture. We've covered this in both 2301 and 2302 when we discussed iron triangles and sub-governments. They can be useful means of overcoming the difficulties check and balances can pose for efficient policymaking, but can lead to political stagnation and also ensure that economic benefits stay contained within a small set of actors.
We'll outline some of these specific relationships in the near future.
- SourceWatch
- OpenSecrets
- RevolvingDoor
- Public Citizen
There's more available, but these seem to do a good job of outlining actual examples of people shifting from positions in Congress, the executive branch and interest groups. The connection between interest groups and the executive branch is agency capture. We've covered this in both 2301 and 2302 when we discussed iron triangles and sub-governments. They can be useful means of overcoming the difficulties check and balances can pose for efficient policymaking, but can lead to political stagnation and also ensure that economic benefits stay contained within a small set of actors.
We'll outline some of these specific relationships in the near future.
Agency Capture
In my TTH 2301 class today we brought up the topic of agency capture, specifically concerning the Federal Communications Commission. Chris mentioned the connection between Clear Channel Communications and the Bush Administration and thought I was familar with the argument, I had no specific information at the time. Here's a link that lays out some of the connections.
You may also wants to check out this page at opensecrets.org that shows how much telecommunications companies gave to each political party during the 2004 electoral cycle. Clear Channel was not among the president's top contributors in 2004.
You may also wants to check out this page at opensecrets.org that shows how much telecommunications companies gave to each political party during the 2004 electoral cycle. Clear Channel was not among the president's top contributors in 2004.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Iraq, Democrats, and the Responsible Party Model
I had the pleasure of picking up a class for Elizabeth McLane and went over the power point slides for the political parties chapter in the Lowi, Ginsburg, Shepsle textbook.
A discussion picked up when we covered the responsible party model and applied it to the current efforts of the Democrats to impose a timetable on our involvement in Iraq. The Responsible Party Model, which was an effort by the American Political Science Association to ensure that parties are meaningful instruments of democratic choice, holds that "An effective party system requires, first, that the parties are able to bring forth programs to which they commit themselves and, second, that the parties possess sufficient internal cohesion to carry out these programs."
Regardless of one's opinion on what the Democrats are up to, and the wisdom of imposing a time limit, would the Democrats be negligent in their duty as a responsible party if they not seek to impose a time limit? It is generally conceded that the 2006 election was a referendum on the Iraq War, so the Democrats are the majority party for a reason. If they do not go forward with opposition to the war they could be undermining democracy at home. Voters opposed to the war wont really know whether they can trust the Democrats to do what they say they will do if they continue to voice opposition to the war.
One could also argue that it is important that one of the presidential candidates, John McCain, seems to be basing his campaign on support for the existing policy. Voters may have a choice, and this is what makes political parties vital instruments of democratic politics.
At least that's what the model holds. Is it wrong?
A discussion picked up when we covered the responsible party model and applied it to the current efforts of the Democrats to impose a timetable on our involvement in Iraq. The Responsible Party Model, which was an effort by the American Political Science Association to ensure that parties are meaningful instruments of democratic choice, holds that "An effective party system requires, first, that the parties are able to bring forth programs to which they commit themselves and, second, that the parties possess sufficient internal cohesion to carry out these programs."
Regardless of one's opinion on what the Democrats are up to, and the wisdom of imposing a time limit, would the Democrats be negligent in their duty as a responsible party if they not seek to impose a time limit? It is generally conceded that the 2006 election was a referendum on the Iraq War, so the Democrats are the majority party for a reason. If they do not go forward with opposition to the war they could be undermining democracy at home. Voters opposed to the war wont really know whether they can trust the Democrats to do what they say they will do if they continue to voice opposition to the war.
One could also argue that it is important that one of the presidential candidates, John McCain, seems to be basing his campaign on support for the existing policy. Voters may have a choice, and this is what makes political parties vital instruments of democratic politics.
At least that's what the model holds. Is it wrong?
War Czar, part 2
Regarding my post below, some commentators have wondered why we need a war czar when we have a commander in chief? Isn't it the president's job to coordinate military policy?
Explain Don Imus to Me
Please.
Yes I understand that he--and the rest of the shock jocks--boost ratings, which increases ad revenues, which increase media profits, which expand the availability of media outlets, which expands the possibility of democratic government, which makes the sky bluer and flowers sweeter smelling and puppies cuter and reduces acne, but still...
His recent comments--which have dominated mainstream media and the blogosphere--are hardly the only controversial statements he's made over the years. Yet his radio and television program has become (perhaps that ought to be past tense) a necessary stop for most political players over the past few years.
Why is he taken seriously? And add to the mix the range of talking heads whose careers are based on mean, shrill commentary. They only have a platform because we build it for them. We pay attention.
Why?
Yes I understand that he--and the rest of the shock jocks--boost ratings, which increases ad revenues, which increase media profits, which expand the availability of media outlets, which expands the possibility of democratic government, which makes the sky bluer and flowers sweeter smelling and puppies cuter and reduces acne, but still...
His recent comments--which have dominated mainstream media and the blogosphere--are hardly the only controversial statements he's made over the years. Yet his radio and television program has become (perhaps that ought to be past tense) a necessary stop for most political players over the past few years.
Why is he taken seriously? And add to the mix the range of talking heads whose careers are based on mean, shrill commentary. They only have a platform because we build it for them. We pay attention.
Why?
Robert Mugabe
After helping free Zimbabwe, then Rhodesia, from colonial control, Robert Mugabe drifted into old-school dictatorship.
Media stories have highlighted recent difficulties he has had retaining control. Click here for details on how his current actions are leading to eforts to resist his rule.
Media stories have highlighted recent difficulties he has had retaining control. Click here for details on how his current actions are leading to eforts to resist his rule.
Voter Fraud, Real and/or Imagined
The New York Times reports today on ongoing disputes concerning voter fraud.
Traditionally, Republicans have argued that voter fraud is pervasive and that voters are not intimidated when they come to the polls. Democrats argue the opposite, that fraud is not a problem, but voter intimidation is.
The current controversy concerns whether voter fraud has in fact been pervasive recently. A draft of a report commissioned by the Election Assistance Commission stated that it was not, which seems to have not been the conclusion the commission wanted. The final report stated that the evidence was inconclusive. Critics wonder whether the preliminary results were watered down purposefully.
This is ultimately an electoral dispute because more people identify with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party and if they all show up to vote, Democrats win. But since the Democratic coalition includes poorer and minority voters who may not have proper identification, requiring ID suppresses their ability to vote. Fewer voting Democrats, greater Republican success.
Of course we have the right to demand that only legitimate voters be able to vote and the the process be conducted fairly, so a dilemma lies at the heart of this dispute, but I believe it is fair to assume that the overriding concern is victory. As my 2301's remember, similar accusations confronted the Progressives who were accused of cleaning up politics by limiting participation by the poor.
The story points out that this issue underlies attorneygate. The fired attorneys were not aggressively pushing voter fraud cases, which in turn points out the conflict that exists between the political and bureaucratic wings of the executive. The careerists attorneys consider themselves above politics, the White House does not.
Traditionally, Republicans have argued that voter fraud is pervasive and that voters are not intimidated when they come to the polls. Democrats argue the opposite, that fraud is not a problem, but voter intimidation is.
The current controversy concerns whether voter fraud has in fact been pervasive recently. A draft of a report commissioned by the Election Assistance Commission stated that it was not, which seems to have not been the conclusion the commission wanted. The final report stated that the evidence was inconclusive. Critics wonder whether the preliminary results were watered down purposefully.
This is ultimately an electoral dispute because more people identify with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party and if they all show up to vote, Democrats win. But since the Democratic coalition includes poorer and minority voters who may not have proper identification, requiring ID suppresses their ability to vote. Fewer voting Democrats, greater Republican success.
Of course we have the right to demand that only legitimate voters be able to vote and the the process be conducted fairly, so a dilemma lies at the heart of this dispute, but I believe it is fair to assume that the overriding concern is victory. As my 2301's remember, similar accusations confronted the Progressives who were accused of cleaning up politics by limiting participation by the poor.
The story points out that this issue underlies attorneygate. The fired attorneys were not aggressively pushing voter fraud cases, which in turn points out the conflict that exists between the political and bureaucratic wings of the executive. The careerists attorneys consider themselves above politics, the White House does not.
War Czar
Words like "czar" always make me nervous, especially when they are used to describe administration officials. The intent is to make it more likely that the official can get their designated job done by streamlining the bureaucratic system underlying the job. This has its benefits of course, but one person's efficiency is another's tyranny.
Past "czars" have been appointed over energy and drugs, but now a story has appeared in the Washington Post on the President's so far unsuccessful search for a war czar.
The anti-federalists were nervous about the single headed executive established in Article II of the Constitution because they thought it would lead to the development of a military-king, a czar if you will.
Were they right to be fearful? Is it a good sign that there have been no takers thus far? Or perhaps an ominous sign? What type of person is likely to take the job? Perhaps the story is intended to be a trial balloon that the administration will float up in order to determine whether the public will support the creation of the office. If the reaction is negative, they will pull support. This assumes that the administration cares about public opinion of course.
Past "czars" have been appointed over energy and drugs, but now a story has appeared in the Washington Post on the President's so far unsuccessful search for a war czar.
The anti-federalists were nervous about the single headed executive established in Article II of the Constitution because they thought it would lead to the development of a military-king, a czar if you will.
Were they right to be fearful? Is it a good sign that there have been no takers thus far? Or perhaps an ominous sign? What type of person is likely to take the job? Perhaps the story is intended to be a trial balloon that the administration will float up in order to determine whether the public will support the creation of the office. If the reaction is negative, they will pull support. This assumes that the administration cares about public opinion of course.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
A Study of Media Bias
My apologies for forgetting how I stumbled across this report. It's just over a year old from UCLA and purports to be the first to find a truly objective way to assess media bias. Bias is line of study that is difficult to explore in an unbiased manner, so the researchers deserve applause for making the attempt, though I'm sure there are other ways to over come it--possibly yielding different results.
They looked at the citation patterns of major news sources (whether they referred to interest groups and think tanks that tend to lean to the left) and compared these patterns to members of Congress that also referred to those groups. They then assigned the ADA score given to the member of Congress to the media source.
What is an ADA score you ask? It's the score that the Americans for Democratic Action assign to members of Congress based on an analysis of their voting record. 100 means most liberal, 0 means most conservative. Many groups do similar studies. It can often be used as guide for whom to support and whom to oppose in an election.
That's (roughly) the methodology, here are some results. The results, as should be expected, confirm some hunches and disprove others.
- 18 of 20 media outlets leaned to the left, but
- the Wall Street Journal news pages (not the editorial pages) were most liberal, followed by
#2 - CBS' "Evening News"
#3 - The New York Times
#4 - The Los Angeles Times
The most conservative source of news were:
- Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume"
- The Washington Times
The most centrist sources were
- the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer"
- CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown"
- ABC's "Good Morning America"
A huge surprise was that the Drudge Report, an online news source, scored liberal but the authors believe that that has less to do with Matt Drudge's own positions than with those of the stories he links to.
The authors suggest that: "If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news."
Fine, but what's the fun in that?
They looked at the citation patterns of major news sources (whether they referred to interest groups and think tanks that tend to lean to the left) and compared these patterns to members of Congress that also referred to those groups. They then assigned the ADA score given to the member of Congress to the media source.
What is an ADA score you ask? It's the score that the Americans for Democratic Action assign to members of Congress based on an analysis of their voting record. 100 means most liberal, 0 means most conservative. Many groups do similar studies. It can often be used as guide for whom to support and whom to oppose in an election.
That's (roughly) the methodology, here are some results. The results, as should be expected, confirm some hunches and disprove others.
- 18 of 20 media outlets leaned to the left, but
- the Wall Street Journal news pages (not the editorial pages) were most liberal, followed by
#2 - CBS' "Evening News"
#3 - The New York Times
#4 - The Los Angeles Times
The most conservative source of news were:
- Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume"
- The Washington Times
The most centrist sources were
- the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer"
- CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown"
- ABC's "Good Morning America"
A huge surprise was that the Drudge Report, an online news source, scored liberal but the authors believe that that has less to do with Matt Drudge's own positions than with those of the stories he links to.
The authors suggest that: "If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news."
Fine, but what's the fun in that?
Monday, April 9, 2007
potus v bureaucracy
In 2302, section 2 we discussed the tension that often develops between the political appointees of the White House and the long time civil servants whose tenure in office overlaps several administrations. I fumbled for examples, but attorneygate provides some fresh ones.
Like the recent appointment of Rachel Paulose as U.S. Attorney for the district of Minnesota.
Like the recent appointment of Rachel Paulose as U.S. Attorney for the district of Minnesota.
Judicial Activism
The Cato Institute is publishing a book that makes a case for it.
A restrained judiciary may allow the executive and legislative branches to step on civil liberties.
Read: A Cheer for Judicial Activism.
A restrained judiciary may allow the executive and legislative branches to step on civil liberties.
Read: A Cheer for Judicial Activism.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Mass v. EPA, Part 2
The fallout over Massachusetts v. EPA continues and as time progresses commentators are focusing more on the nuances of the case. Some of this we've covered in class, some (most) we haven't.
Here's a Sunday piece by Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times' Supreme Court corespondent. She focuses on Roberts' dissenting opinion and the limited concept of standing he outlines in it. As we discussed in class, that may be the central dispute between the majority and dissenting opinions. The majority sees the court as an appropriate venue for these issues to be heard, the minority does not.
This is a classic dispute between those who see the court's as an active participant in policy and those who do not. This has nothing to do with the seriouseness of the issue, just the forum where it can legitimately be addressed. When we discuss the shift of the courts to the right over the past three or four decades, this is the sort of issue we are talking about.
Here's a Sunday piece by Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times' Supreme Court corespondent. She focuses on Roberts' dissenting opinion and the limited concept of standing he outlines in it. As we discussed in class, that may be the central dispute between the majority and dissenting opinions. The majority sees the court as an appropriate venue for these issues to be heard, the minority does not.
This is a classic dispute between those who see the court's as an active participant in policy and those who do not. This has nothing to do with the seriouseness of the issue, just the forum where it can legitimately be addressed. When we discuss the shift of the courts to the right over the past three or four decades, this is the sort of issue we are talking about.
In a land with no 5th Amendment:
from 3quarks daily comes a story from Poland about the law of lustration, something I was not aware of until now. Lustration is a form of purification, in this case anyone affiliated with the communist regime, must confess it. Some risk losing their jobs if they did, all face it if they refuse to fess up.
The commentators trace this law to Catholicism, and it does have a wiff of the inquisition about it. Though the inquisition aquired a negative reputation for obvious reasons, the purpose of the process was to actually find the truth behind whatever case was brought forward. Our is an adversarial system where two sides of an argument compete to influence an impartial group of citizens.
At the heart of the adversarial system lies the notion that freedom includes the ability to not have to incriminate yourself. The inquisitorial system does not. You have to lay out what happened, or you can be held accountable.
My question is this, though we are conditioned to believe that our judicial system is better than those of other countries, do we secretly long for the truth promised by an inquisition? So much of our criticisms of the legal process focus on crafty lawyers, idiotic juries, and dishonest defendants pleading the 5th Amendment that I strongly believe that a majority of Americans could be persuaded to change it all if given the chance. Our commitment to individual rights is rather thin.
Am I off base?
The commentators trace this law to Catholicism, and it does have a wiff of the inquisition about it. Though the inquisition aquired a negative reputation for obvious reasons, the purpose of the process was to actually find the truth behind whatever case was brought forward. Our is an adversarial system where two sides of an argument compete to influence an impartial group of citizens.
At the heart of the adversarial system lies the notion that freedom includes the ability to not have to incriminate yourself. The inquisitorial system does not. You have to lay out what happened, or you can be held accountable.
My question is this, though we are conditioned to believe that our judicial system is better than those of other countries, do we secretly long for the truth promised by an inquisition? So much of our criticisms of the legal process focus on crafty lawyers, idiotic juries, and dishonest defendants pleading the 5th Amendment that I strongly believe that a majority of Americans could be persuaded to change it all if given the chance. Our commitment to individual rights is rather thin.
Am I off base?
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Self Esteem
There's a move underway challenging K-12's focus on self-esteem. Current theory holds that self esteem comes first, then learning. Increasing numbers argue that it should be the other way around.
Though I'm no expert on the subject, my years in the cc classroom have led me to believe that students know far less than they think they know, and the one's who are the most self critical seem to perform the best.
Though I'm no expert on the subject, my years in the cc classroom have led me to believe that students know far less than they think they know, and the one's who are the most self critical seem to perform the best.
Is this really a good idea?
Let me begin by saying that I support the right of people to hunt, and I also believe that we, as a society, should do all we can to enable those with disabilities to enjoy as full a life as those of us without disabilities (allegedly) do.
With that out of the way, do we want the blind to be able to hunt?
Here's a link to the bill in question and the bill's sponsor.
With that out of the way, do we want the blind to be able to hunt?
Here's a link to the bill in question and the bill's sponsor.
Chad Vader
OK I must admit that I'm just slightly depressed that the Geico Caveman's Crib has been the most popular post I've put up, but I'm not only going with the flow, I'll do one better.
Meet Chad Vader, Darth's "less charismatic" younger brother.
Meet Chad Vader, Darth's "less charismatic" younger brother.
Law Schools and the Law
The recent resignation of Monica Goodling from the Justice Department has shed light on the number of lawyers in the Bush Administration who have been trained at Pat Robertons' Regent University Law School. Read more about this from Slate.
Both Mr. Robertson and Jerry Faldwell have been upfront in their desire to change the course of the legal system in the United States in a direction that in their minds more accurately reflects the intentions on the country's founders. Here's a site that provides background on their position.
Both Mr. Robertson and Jerry Faldwell have been upfront in their desire to change the course of the legal system in the United States in a direction that in their minds more accurately reflects the intentions on the country's founders. Here's a site that provides background on their position.
Friday, April 6, 2007
On Peace
Is humanity becoming more peaceful? Despite well documented attrocities over the past century or so, Steven Pinker says that we are and offers proof.
Part of the reason is the development of governments that claim monopolies on the use of coercive power. Without it, you and I must rely on vigilante force and vendettas to solve disputes--often preemptive and homicidal.
Greater media coverage allows us to empathize with a larger group of people than just our own clan, making us less likely to act out violently than we may have in the past. We are less likely to want to kill those we recogize as human.
Maybe governments are justified after all.
Part of the reason is the development of governments that claim monopolies on the use of coercive power. Without it, you and I must rely on vigilante force and vendettas to solve disputes--often preemptive and homicidal.
Greater media coverage allows us to empathize with a larger group of people than just our own clan, making us less likely to act out violently than we may have in the past. We are less likely to want to kill those we recogize as human.
Maybe governments are justified after all.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Look who is lobbying . . .
. . . for marijuana legalization group, the Marijuana Policy Project: Bob Barr. As a member of Congress, Mr. Barr managed the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. He has since distanced himself from his old party and joined the Libertarian Party.
He states that recent expansions of governmental power have led him to become an advocate for civil liberty protections.
He states that recent expansions of governmental power have led him to become an advocate for civil liberty protections.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
The Supreme Court Rules that the EPA must Confront Global Warming
The Supreme Court gave the environmental movement a very narrow victory yesterday in Massachusetts v. EPA, which dealt specifically with whether a governmental agency (the EPA) was negligent in not carrying out its mission in the manner in which some felt it was required to. In brief, several states and cities brought suit against the EPA to force it to regulate carbon dioxide (specifcally tailpipe emissions) as a pollutant, or to not interfere with the ability of the states to regulate them. The EPA claimed that it lacked jurisdiction to regulate carbon dioxide.
The case is as much about the relationship between the bureaucracy and Congress, and the states and the federal government, as it is about the environment. Can the discretion a bureaucratic agency has in rulemaking negate the intent of the statute the agancy was required to implement? How do we define the jurisdiction of the agency?
The vote also reinforces the notion that the current Supreme Court is composed of two factions of four (the liberals and the conservatives), with the deciding vote resting with Anthony Kennedy.
Since my 2302's are covering the courts at the moment, and this case illustrates many of the points I'm trying to make, we ought to go over parts of it. I'll need more time to digest the case, but here are three contentious parst of the case:
Standing: A key dispute between the majority and the dissenters concerns whether this is a case that the courts have jurisdiction. The dissenters argue that there is no injury suffered by the inaction of the EPA, so the plaintiff's lack standing to sue. The majority points out that standing does not only refer to actual injury, but to imminent injury as well. The failure to act, leads to injuries suffered, or to be suffered, by the state.
The Court's jurisdiction: For the dissenters, the issue was less the power of government to go forward, than the effort of the states to force the federal government to go forward, by going to the courts, when it did not want to. The majority held that this was a legitimate concern.
Strict and loose interpretations of statutory and constitutional language: The statutory language at issue is the defintion of "pollutant." Carbon dioxide isn't normally a pollutant, plants live on it after all, so a narrow definition would not allow for governmental regulation, but its interaction with the atmosphere causes conditions that might require governmental action. If that interaction can be defined loosely as pollution, then government is permitted to go forward.
Given that this was a 5-4 decision, it is unwise to read too much into it. If Kennedy had decided to go the other way, the EPA would have won.
For background, click here for the wikipedia entry on the case.
The case is as much about the relationship between the bureaucracy and Congress, and the states and the federal government, as it is about the environment. Can the discretion a bureaucratic agency has in rulemaking negate the intent of the statute the agancy was required to implement? How do we define the jurisdiction of the agency?
The vote also reinforces the notion that the current Supreme Court is composed of two factions of four (the liberals and the conservatives), with the deciding vote resting with Anthony Kennedy.
Since my 2302's are covering the courts at the moment, and this case illustrates many of the points I'm trying to make, we ought to go over parts of it. I'll need more time to digest the case, but here are three contentious parst of the case:
Standing: A key dispute between the majority and the dissenters concerns whether this is a case that the courts have jurisdiction. The dissenters argue that there is no injury suffered by the inaction of the EPA, so the plaintiff's lack standing to sue. The majority points out that standing does not only refer to actual injury, but to imminent injury as well. The failure to act, leads to injuries suffered, or to be suffered, by the state.
The Court's jurisdiction: For the dissenters, the issue was less the power of government to go forward, than the effort of the states to force the federal government to go forward, by going to the courts, when it did not want to. The majority held that this was a legitimate concern.
Strict and loose interpretations of statutory and constitutional language: The statutory language at issue is the defintion of "pollutant." Carbon dioxide isn't normally a pollutant, plants live on it after all, so a narrow definition would not allow for governmental regulation, but its interaction with the atmosphere causes conditions that might require governmental action. If that interaction can be defined loosely as pollution, then government is permitted to go forward.
Given that this was a 5-4 decision, it is unwise to read too much into it. If Kennedy had decided to go the other way, the EPA would have won.
For background, click here for the wikipedia entry on the case.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Gen X for President
Looking through the material on generational politics I just realized that Barack Obama is the first member of Generation X to run for president. This may be a disputed point because some say that X'ers begin with those born in 1961, which means he is, while other say he was born in 1964, which means he isn't. I recall someone arguing that a boomer must be old enough to remember the Kennedy assassination.
So, do we want a slacker president? Or is the label accurate?
So, do we want a slacker president? Or is the label accurate?
The WWI Generation
I mispoke in my 2301 classes recently when I stated that the last WWI veteran had died. It was in fact the last female WWI veteran, but the point regarding generational politics is still valid.
It's a fact of life that we die eventually, and a fact of political life that living memory of key moments in history dies off as well. The voice of experience expires. All that's left is the written record and myth, for better or worse.
FYI: Here's a post from a few months back on living in a baby boomer's world.
It's a fact of life that we die eventually, and a fact of political life that living memory of key moments in history dies off as well. The voice of experience expires. All that's left is the written record and myth, for better or worse.
FYI: Here's a post from a few months back on living in a baby boomer's world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)