After a debate filled fall, the competition for the Republican nomination is about to get serious. Actual elections will be held and delegates will begin to be allocated to each candidate. Eventually we will get a clear idea of who the Republcian nominee will be. As you probably know, no Democrat has chosen to challenge President Obama for the Democratic nomination - so there's not much to follow there, but I want you to investigate and describe what is going happen in Iowa and New Hampshire for each party nevertheless.
So tell me the following: What is the Iowa Caucus and what is the new Hamsphire Primary? More importantly, how do each work? How do Democrats and Republicans in each state determine what level of support will be given to each candidate? Their processes are not the same, so give me some detail here. I'm interested in the mechanics of each event, not an assessment of who is likely to win - that's the easy part.
Let me know if you need me to clear this question up, but the goal is for you to become familiar with these two events.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
The state of civil liberities - 2011
To add to this week's coverage of civil liberties, John Whitehead reviews the year in civil liberties and does not like what he sees. A combination of increasingly sophisticated surveillance technologies as well as laws and court decisions that allow for more aggressive policing, in his view, have led us to the brink of a police state.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Are Polls Magic?
One author wonders; another debunks him thoroughly.
2301s: within a couple weeks we will be looking at polls and explaining that there is nothing magical about basic probability theory. It's a shame that people in the media do not realize this. Perhaps this explains ignorance in the general population.
2301s: within a couple weeks we will be looking at polls and explaining that there is nothing magical about basic probability theory. It's a shame that people in the media do not realize this. Perhaps this explains ignorance in the general population.
Ideological extremisn and the 2012 primaries
This column hits a often repeated political theme - candidates for the presdiency must first win their party's nomination before they can run for the general election. Nothing new here. Generally one has to take more ideologically "extreme" positions to win the support of the party identifiers than is necessary to win the genewral election. Sometimes this ca the promary has adopted too many extreme positions to be competitive ion the general election.
The author wonders whether the Republican primary process might to this to the eventual nominee. As we approach our section on elections, it is worth sondering whether this is the best way to ensure that we elect the best posible people president.
The author wonders whether the Republican primary process might to this to the eventual nominee. As we approach our section on elections, it is worth sondering whether this is the best way to ensure that we elect the best posible people president.
Will SOPA break the internet?
This builds off posts far below, but might an exhuberant proposal to protect copyright holders online ruin the internet? People on the left and the right seem to be rallying against the proposal.
Does the public have consistent opinions on the gap between the rich and the poor?
An ongoing theme in this class (one of them anyway) is whether the general public has the disposition necessary to be the basis for a system of government. My 2301 winter students will slog through Federalist #10 this week and consider this question and how the constitutional system is designed to compensate for the deficiencies of the public.
Here is the latest example. Andrew Gellman points to two well reasoned, well supported arguments that hold (1) that the public does not really care about the gap between the rich and the poor and (2) that it does.
A vast majority of Americans — including half of all self-identified Republicans — think there is “too much power in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations.” And a solid majority believes that “the country’s economic system unfairly favors the wealthy.” On the other hand, close to 60 percent of Americans do not see the country as “divided into haves and have-nots” and over 60 percent see “big government” as the biggest threat to the country in the future. What gives?
What seems to give is our ambiguity about certain issues compounded by the fact that public opinion polls ask questions that attempt to simplify issues, perhaps a bit much. Two questions, worded differently, which attempt to determine how people think about a specific item, can come up with two different opinions. Neither is wrong necessarily, we are all internally conflicted.
As we begin to dig into elections, parties and political conflict in general, we will see how these internal contradictions influence how political campaigns are organized and how people can be persuaded to see the same things in different ways.
Here is the latest example. Andrew Gellman points to two well reasoned, well supported arguments that hold (1) that the public does not really care about the gap between the rich and the poor and (2) that it does.
A vast majority of Americans — including half of all self-identified Republicans — think there is “too much power in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations.” And a solid majority believes that “the country’s economic system unfairly favors the wealthy.” On the other hand, close to 60 percent of Americans do not see the country as “divided into haves and have-nots” and over 60 percent see “big government” as the biggest threat to the country in the future. What gives?
What seems to give is our ambiguity about certain issues compounded by the fact that public opinion polls ask questions that attempt to simplify issues, perhaps a bit much. Two questions, worded differently, which attempt to determine how people think about a specific item, can come up with two different opinions. Neither is wrong necessarily, we are all internally conflicted.
As we begin to dig into elections, parties and political conflict in general, we will see how these internal contradictions influence how political campaigns are organized and how people can be persuaded to see the same things in different ways.
The Political Background of the Celebration Christmas
Apparently the celebration of Christmas had a very different feel prior to the mid 19th century. It was quite rebellious.
Adaptive Authoritarianism in China
The New York Review of Books has an analysis of how China's authoritative system has adapted in order to more effectively calm local rebellions.
. . . “adaptive authoritarianism.” As Peter L. Lorentzen of the University of California, Berkeley, has written, officials view protests as way to gauge popular discontent. Small-scale protests function as a feedback mechanism for the government of a country without an active civil society or elections. Far from being a harbinger of regime change, Lorentzen argues that, in China at least, they can stabilize the regime.
So while the regime overall remains repressive, it is taking a more nuanced approach to dealing with discontent. Bending, not breaking -- if that's an appropriate analogy. Limits still exist on what peopel can protest however:
. . . the government only allows the discussion to go so far. It’s okay to say that local officials are corrupt or that the real estate deal in question was wrong. But it is not acceptable to have protesters link up with each other in a national network. And it is certainly not acceptable to criticize the root cause of Wukan’s problems—China’s lack of checks and balances that allow local officials to rule like warlords for decades before local finally explode and the problems are finally addressed. These deep-structure issues are still taboo.
The greater degree of economic freedom allowed in China over the past two decades has led many to wonder when - not it - calls for political freedom will be heard throughout the nation. Western political theorists have always held that economic freedom precedes political freedom and that the latter inevitable follows the former. Perhaps this is a way for the regime to delay that transition, if not prevent it altogether.
As Chinese have become wealthier and better educated, they are demanding more control over their lives. In a more mature political system, civil society—the press, courts, non-governmental organizations, and civic associations—could help address situations like a village protest before they require the direct intervention of one of the country’s most powerful politicians.
It’s no coincidence either that the Wukan uprising was spurred by another growing worry in China: the country’s mounting economic challenges. China’s real estate bubble is deflating, inflation remains stubborn, and exports are facing new competition. These can only add to tensions in society, forcing leaders to stick more and more of their fingers in the political system’s holes. But given the élan of China’s millennia-old bureaucracy, the system itself does not seem at risk, at least in the absence of some far larger precipitating event. In the meantime, the lessons of Wukan may be that the country’s leaders can leap from wall to wall, plugging leaks and keeping the system working far longer than westerners can imagine.
The regime may be more solid than we think.
. . . “adaptive authoritarianism.” As Peter L. Lorentzen of the University of California, Berkeley, has written, officials view protests as way to gauge popular discontent. Small-scale protests function as a feedback mechanism for the government of a country without an active civil society or elections. Far from being a harbinger of regime change, Lorentzen argues that, in China at least, they can stabilize the regime.
So while the regime overall remains repressive, it is taking a more nuanced approach to dealing with discontent. Bending, not breaking -- if that's an appropriate analogy. Limits still exist on what peopel can protest however:
. . . the government only allows the discussion to go so far. It’s okay to say that local officials are corrupt or that the real estate deal in question was wrong. But it is not acceptable to have protesters link up with each other in a national network. And it is certainly not acceptable to criticize the root cause of Wukan’s problems—China’s lack of checks and balances that allow local officials to rule like warlords for decades before local finally explode and the problems are finally addressed. These deep-structure issues are still taboo.
The greater degree of economic freedom allowed in China over the past two decades has led many to wonder when - not it - calls for political freedom will be heard throughout the nation. Western political theorists have always held that economic freedom precedes political freedom and that the latter inevitable follows the former. Perhaps this is a way for the regime to delay that transition, if not prevent it altogether.
As Chinese have become wealthier and better educated, they are demanding more control over their lives. In a more mature political system, civil society—the press, courts, non-governmental organizations, and civic associations—could help address situations like a village protest before they require the direct intervention of one of the country’s most powerful politicians.
It’s no coincidence either that the Wukan uprising was spurred by another growing worry in China: the country’s mounting economic challenges. China’s real estate bubble is deflating, inflation remains stubborn, and exports are facing new competition. These can only add to tensions in society, forcing leaders to stick more and more of their fingers in the political system’s holes. But given the élan of China’s millennia-old bureaucracy, the system itself does not seem at risk, at least in the absence of some far larger precipitating event. In the meantime, the lessons of Wukan may be that the country’s leaders can leap from wall to wall, plugging leaks and keeping the system working far longer than westerners can imagine.
The regime may be more solid than we think.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Does Gingrich have a good point regarding the courts?
Newt Gingrich's recent criticisms of the judiciary have angered some, but Eric Posner thinks he makes a reasonable point. As we continue to wade through the Constitution, its appropriate to wonder who has the last word on the document's meaning. The Constitution itself says nothing about who gets to decide this, though Alexander Hamilton sides with the judiciary on the subject and lays out his argument in Federalist #78.
Give it a read.
Give it a read.
Convicted for words, not deeds
Are First Amendment freedoms slowly eroding? Something to ponder as you begin looking through civil liberties next week. As in the previsou story on whether the bird flu studies shodul be published, is concern for security minimizing individual freedom?
Copyright and the Amen Break
One of the delegated powers listed in the U.S. Constitution concerns copyrights and patents. The digital age, since it makes copying so easy (as if you did not know that already my dear students), has renewed attention to copyright issues. Some argue that that this attention has been overly-zealous and may well stifle the creative process. Artists tend to borrow heavily from one another.
In this spirit, I found this great video detailing the creation and use of the "amen break" which was a six second drum break in a song recorded in 1969 which has become a staple of hip-hop, rap and drum and bass songs, as well as commercials. You've heard the beat repeatedly. It's a neat story.
In this spirit, I found this great video detailing the creation and use of the "amen break" which was a six second drum break in a song recorded in 1969 which has become a staple of hip-hop, rap and drum and bass songs, as well as commercials. You've heard the beat repeatedly. It's a neat story.
New EPA Regulations
On the heels of the FAA story below, the EPA recently issued rules limiting the emmissions of mercury and other by-products from coal and oil burning plants.
The rules are titled the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Here is a link to the presidential memorandum announcing the rules.
The rules are titled the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Here is a link to the presidential memorandum announcing the rules.
New FAA Regulations
In the news today is a new regulation by the Federal Aviation Agency regarding the amount of time pilots can fly - and the amount of time they are expected to sleep between flights. As with many things government do - or decide to do - it is in response to a recent event. In 2009 a plane crashed on route to Buffalo, New York, and pilot fatigue was argued to have been a leading cause of the crash.
This is worth pondering in 2301 since one of the ideological issues commonly debated is what the proper role of government ought to be. Does this fit within that framework or not? Apart from ideological considerations comes the real world question of how governmental officials are likely to react - and how the general population might want them to react - when a bad thing happens and we think we know why it happened and that it might be prevented in the future.
One other point for 2301s to consider is the nature of the decision - it was made by an executive agency charged with overseeing air travel. It was not done through a democratic process. Is this a problem?
Some related links:
- FAA Regulations.
- FAA Regulations & Policies.
- Federal Aviation Regulations (wikipedia)
- UPS Pilots sue to be included in the rule.
- Story from WaPo.
This is worth pondering in 2301 since one of the ideological issues commonly debated is what the proper role of government ought to be. Does this fit within that framework or not? Apart from ideological considerations comes the real world question of how governmental officials are likely to react - and how the general population might want them to react - when a bad thing happens and we think we know why it happened and that it might be prevented in the future.
One other point for 2301s to consider is the nature of the decision - it was made by an executive agency charged with overseeing air travel. It was not done through a democratic process. Is this a problem?
Some related links:
- FAA Regulations.
- FAA Regulations & Policies.
- Federal Aviation Regulations (wikipedia)
- UPS Pilots sue to be included in the rule.
- Story from WaPo.
2 - Written Assignment GOVT 2301 Fall Mini
I'm heading out later today for the holidays so my access to the internet might be a bit sporadic. I want to give my 2301 mini next week's written assignment a bit early.
Next week's readings will cover the basic principles in the Constitution. As you'll see, each shares one major feature. They all involve divisions. Divisions are struck between government and the people in order to protect each from the other, the powers of government are separated and vested in three branches of government and power is also split between the national and state governments. None of these makes governing easy, but that is the intention. Recall that the simplest governing system - absolute rule by an autocrat - is also the most arbitrary.
The first written assignment - on the conflict over redistricting - was designed to get you thinking about the consequences of these divisions. The second assignment is designed to do the same.
If you have been following the news you have certainly heard about the ongoing struggle over whether to extend the reduction in payroll taxes (which fund Social Security), and for how long. You may be aware that the Senate and the House of Representatives have made different proposals about this matter and that the House refused to vote on a proposal that passed the Senate overwhelmingly. Clearly what motivated the Senate, did not motivate the House.
The merits of the proposal regarding extending the payroll tax reduction to the side, this is in many ways what each chamber is designed to do, check the actions of the other. So this conflict is a consequence of not only the separated powers and the checks and balances generally, but the bicameral legislative system specifically. If you pay close attention to the material presented, you will note that the House and the Senate have unique connections to the general population that almost gurantees conflicts of this sort.
I want you to explore that last point in your written work. Try to come to terms with why the House and Senate have come to different opinions on how to handle this issue and what this tells us about the differences between the two institutions. Is this conflict inevitable? I also want you to also consider the roles that political parties play in this conflict. We have yet to discuss them fully - but we will soon, so this is a good way to get familiar with what they are and what they do.
As with many of the written assignments I give you, I want you to struggle with the tension between what we might want a government to do - solve problems easily, efficiently and non-controversially - and what our government is designed to do in the Constitution: fight internally.
Next week's readings will cover the basic principles in the Constitution. As you'll see, each shares one major feature. They all involve divisions. Divisions are struck between government and the people in order to protect each from the other, the powers of government are separated and vested in three branches of government and power is also split between the national and state governments. None of these makes governing easy, but that is the intention. Recall that the simplest governing system - absolute rule by an autocrat - is also the most arbitrary.
The first written assignment - on the conflict over redistricting - was designed to get you thinking about the consequences of these divisions. The second assignment is designed to do the same.
If you have been following the news you have certainly heard about the ongoing struggle over whether to extend the reduction in payroll taxes (which fund Social Security), and for how long. You may be aware that the Senate and the House of Representatives have made different proposals about this matter and that the House refused to vote on a proposal that passed the Senate overwhelmingly. Clearly what motivated the Senate, did not motivate the House.
The merits of the proposal regarding extending the payroll tax reduction to the side, this is in many ways what each chamber is designed to do, check the actions of the other. So this conflict is a consequence of not only the separated powers and the checks and balances generally, but the bicameral legislative system specifically. If you pay close attention to the material presented, you will note that the House and the Senate have unique connections to the general population that almost gurantees conflicts of this sort.
I want you to explore that last point in your written work. Try to come to terms with why the House and Senate have come to different opinions on how to handle this issue and what this tells us about the differences between the two institutions. Is this conflict inevitable? I also want you to also consider the roles that political parties play in this conflict. We have yet to discuss them fully - but we will soon, so this is a good way to get familiar with what they are and what they do.
As with many of the written assignments I give you, I want you to struggle with the tension between what we might want a government to do - solve problems easily, efficiently and non-controversially - and what our government is designed to do in the Constitution: fight internally.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Federal Panel Requests Censorhip
Here's a civil liberties story - sort of. Scientists have apparently developed a highly lethal version of bird flu and the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity has asked that details of the research not be published. We wouldn't this info to fall into the hands of people who were inclined to use it.
The papers have already been written, so they are ready to be published.
The issue creates a dilemma, one recognized by the board: “Censorship is considered the ultimate sin of original research. However, we also have an imperative to keep certain research out of the hands of individuals who could use it for nefarious purposes,” said Michael T. Osterholm, a member of the board who is also director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. “It is not unexpected that these two things would clash in this very special situation.”
The panel was created in 2005 for this very reason: to avoid slowing down progress without creating new tools for terror.
Here's an NPR story about the group.
The panel apparently lacks the authority to prevent publication - but I have a hunch that some mechanism could be found to prevent it. When we discuss freedom of the press we bring up prior restraint, which allows for the prevention of publications if there is a legitimate reason (harm to national security for example) to do so. But doing so compromises the free exchange of information that has been at the heart of American political, scientific and artistic life.
Similar issues have been brought up regarding information about creating nuclear weapons.
The papers have already been written, so they are ready to be published.
The issue creates a dilemma, one recognized by the board: “Censorship is considered the ultimate sin of original research. However, we also have an imperative to keep certain research out of the hands of individuals who could use it for nefarious purposes,” said Michael T. Osterholm, a member of the board who is also director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. “It is not unexpected that these two things would clash in this very special situation.”
The panel was created in 2005 for this very reason: to avoid slowing down progress without creating new tools for terror.
Here's an NPR story about the group.
The panel apparently lacks the authority to prevent publication - but I have a hunch that some mechanism could be found to prevent it. When we discuss freedom of the press we bring up prior restraint, which allows for the prevention of publications if there is a legitimate reason (harm to national security for example) to do so. But doing so compromises the free exchange of information that has been at the heart of American political, scientific and artistic life.
Similar issues have been brought up regarding information about creating nuclear weapons.
From the Washington Monthly: Progress Against Gerrymendering
This article might be interesting in light of this week's written assignment. Part of the reason we have the conflict over redistricting is because the process is dominated by political parties. This ensures that the desire for partisan advantage will drive the process.
Some states are attempting to make the process non-partisan. The author points an article in Slate - the End of Gerrymandering - which outlines what those states are doing.
Is such a thing possible in Texas?
Some states are attempting to make the process non-partisan. The author points an article in Slate - the End of Gerrymandering - which outlines what those states are doing.
Is such a thing possible in Texas?
From the Monkey Cage: How Much do Individuals Matter in Politics?
From one of my favorite websites, a question pertinent to this week's topic. Do individuals "ever really have [influence] over the evolution of politics in a country, a region, or even the whole global political systems?"
The question is asked as a result of the recent deaths of Vaclav Havel as well as Kim Jong-Il. The former was president over a democratic republic (albeit a recently created one) while the latter ruled a totalitarian autocracy. The story ponders the influence of individuals in each system and points out what this contrast tells us about what well designed institutions do for a republic - they make it stable.
The arbitrary nature of rule in North Korea makes it far more prone to instability (I suppose by definition) while rule by duly established institutions have procedures within them to ensure that decisions will be more or less stable. They can be subject to change, but not rapid, destabilizing change.
This is a central point I try to make clear in the course material. Well constructed institutions placed in a proper relationship with each other (a relationship that has worked itself out over time) are central not only to the preservation of liberty, but to the establishment of a stable society that leads to prosperity.
The question is asked as a result of the recent deaths of Vaclav Havel as well as Kim Jong-Il. The former was president over a democratic republic (albeit a recently created one) while the latter ruled a totalitarian autocracy. The story ponders the influence of individuals in each system and points out what this contrast tells us about what well designed institutions do for a republic - they make it stable.
The arbitrary nature of rule in North Korea makes it far more prone to instability (I suppose by definition) while rule by duly established institutions have procedures within them to ensure that decisions will be more or less stable. They can be subject to change, but not rapid, destabilizing change.
This is a central point I try to make clear in the course material. Well constructed institutions placed in a proper relationship with each other (a relationship that has worked itself out over time) are central not only to the preservation of liberty, but to the establishment of a stable society that leads to prosperity.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
The Death of Kim Jong-Il
The death of North Korea's leader at the beginning of 2301 is actually fortunate since it allows us put to put a few items on this week's agenda in context. (For background click on Kim Jong-Il and North Korea.)
First, North Korea is organized as an autocratic - totalitarian state, meaning that one person possesses sovereign authority (and that it is by definition a tyrannical system - there is no limit on the power of the leader), and there is no individual freedom allowed - the lives of the people are organized according to the whims of the state. As you should figure out from the class material, autocratic systems are noteworthy for their arbitrary nature, and Kim Jong-Il was famously unpredictable - and apparently clever at negotiating.
Being a totalitarian state of the first order, North Korea has one of the worst human rights records in the world (these two tend to go hand in hand). As is common in such states, it is very poor and the per capita GDP is among the lowest in the world. The CIA Factbook places it 160th about of 193 countries, while it places South Korea 31st. the fact that these two nations are essentially the same except for their political systems has allowed for comparisons of the two systems. This illustrates a point made in the class material that free societies tend to be wealthier then repressive ones. Keeping the population poor is actually a good idea if one want to stay in power. Countries become wealthy because they allow their people to develop their talents and apply their ingenuity to problem solving. While this may lead to greater wealth, it also tend to incubate political opponents, not a good thing is one wishes to stay in charge.
We might want to consider what makes a society repressive. How can a population be effectively controlled? North Korea does so externally and internally. External controls are imposed when anyone who seems likely to be a dissident is punished. The nation (which is very secretive) has a system of prisons where political prisoners (itself an interesting species of criminal) and their families are sent. This is old fashioned coercion. But the more effective way to control people seems to be by doing so internally, controlling how they think (Orwell's thought control). Korea has an extensive apparatus designed to create support for their leader (of course, in a sense, we do too, but more on this later). One of the words used to describe this process is propaganda, but it can be deeper and more pernicious. The people of North Korea were born and raised thinking that all that they have is due to the beneficence of Kim Jong-Il. They may not be able to formulate thoughts that his rule was unjust and they should not be forced to live under coercive rule. This leads to an additional point worth pondering as we continue.
I spend a good amount of time in the introductory material detailing the idea that American government rests on the consent of the governed. This is the alternative to rule by coercion, and it is based on the idea that rational people are not willing to consent to be ruled by an autocratic dictator, but is this really true? One of the news items that came out when the death was announced was the public weeping and wailing that occurred across the nation when people learned he had died. We in the west tend to think these were faked, or perhaps coerced. It may very well be that these are genuine however, and the nation's attempt to control how people think and feel has been successful to the point that they willingly consent to a governing that system that we can hardly imagine accepting.
- Some useful links via The Dish.
A few thoughts to consider, I welcome your comments and input.
First, North Korea is organized as an autocratic - totalitarian state, meaning that one person possesses sovereign authority (and that it is by definition a tyrannical system - there is no limit on the power of the leader), and there is no individual freedom allowed - the lives of the people are organized according to the whims of the state. As you should figure out from the class material, autocratic systems are noteworthy for their arbitrary nature, and Kim Jong-Il was famously unpredictable - and apparently clever at negotiating.
Being a totalitarian state of the first order, North Korea has one of the worst human rights records in the world (these two tend to go hand in hand). As is common in such states, it is very poor and the per capita GDP is among the lowest in the world. The CIA Factbook places it 160th about of 193 countries, while it places South Korea 31st. the fact that these two nations are essentially the same except for their political systems has allowed for comparisons of the two systems. This illustrates a point made in the class material that free societies tend to be wealthier then repressive ones. Keeping the population poor is actually a good idea if one want to stay in power. Countries become wealthy because they allow their people to develop their talents and apply their ingenuity to problem solving. While this may lead to greater wealth, it also tend to incubate political opponents, not a good thing is one wishes to stay in charge.
We might want to consider what makes a society repressive. How can a population be effectively controlled? North Korea does so externally and internally. External controls are imposed when anyone who seems likely to be a dissident is punished. The nation (which is very secretive) has a system of prisons where political prisoners (itself an interesting species of criminal) and their families are sent. This is old fashioned coercion. But the more effective way to control people seems to be by doing so internally, controlling how they think (Orwell's thought control). Korea has an extensive apparatus designed to create support for their leader (of course, in a sense, we do too, but more on this later). One of the words used to describe this process is propaganda, but it can be deeper and more pernicious. The people of North Korea were born and raised thinking that all that they have is due to the beneficence of Kim Jong-Il. They may not be able to formulate thoughts that his rule was unjust and they should not be forced to live under coercive rule. This leads to an additional point worth pondering as we continue.
I spend a good amount of time in the introductory material detailing the idea that American government rests on the consent of the governed. This is the alternative to rule by coercion, and it is based on the idea that rational people are not willing to consent to be ruled by an autocratic dictator, but is this really true? One of the news items that came out when the death was announced was the public weeping and wailing that occurred across the nation when people learned he had died. We in the west tend to think these were faked, or perhaps coerced. It may very well be that these are genuine however, and the nation's attempt to control how people think and feel has been successful to the point that they willingly consent to a governing that system that we can hardly imagine accepting.
- Some useful links via The Dish.
A few thoughts to consider, I welcome your comments and input.
Monday, December 19, 2011
1 - Written Assignment GOVT 2301 Fall Mini
In this first written assignment, I want you to dig into the (deliberately) complex nature of the constitutional system. Few items make this complexity more apparent than redistricting. We will hit the various points about the entire process over the course of the semester, so some of this wont make immediate sense, but elementary searches - coupled with the information I give you here - should prepare you to write at least 150 words on the following:
Every ten years the United States conducts a census for the purpose of apportioning representatives to the U.S. House. This is mandated in the Constitution. Though not also mandated - nor even mentioned in the Constitution - each state has chosen to carve itself into districts and have each member of the their House delegation elected from the people in these districts. During the spring of 2012, the census compiled the latest round of numbers and this past spring, the Texas Legislature used it to draw these districts. Several decades ago, the Supreme Court took the additional step of mandating that each district be the same size in order to ensure equal representation.
This is where things get interesting.
The data compiled by the U.S. Census department is nuanced enough to allow district boundaries to be drawn in such a way as to give an advantage to one group (those with control over the districting process) at the expense of others (those who lack such control). The term used for this process is gerrymandering, and while it is illegal, it is commonly practiced, especially here in Texas.
Minority groups in Texas - especially the Latino community - have argued that the plans drawn by the legislature dilute their political strength, illegally. While the census reports that most of the population growth in the state was due to greater numbers of Latinos in the state, the new redistricting plan does not allow the group any additional strength. So they have challenged the plan. In addition, the plan has not been approved (pre-cleared) under rules put in place in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. At the moment the plan is on hold until the Supreme Court rules on it early next year.
By now you should be a bit confused, and with good reason. Redistricting is the type of political issue that brings into play people and interests in each branch of government and on the national, state and local levels. All I want you to do right now is search through available information and determine who those multiple players are, what their role in the process is, and how they are in conflict with other another. I suggest simply doing a search on "Texas redistricting" to compile the information necessary to answer the question.
In other words, I want you to use this current issue to come to terms with the separated powers and the checks and balances, in addition to federalism. It may not make immediate sense to you, but it will.
Give me - at a minimum - 150 words.
Every ten years the United States conducts a census for the purpose of apportioning representatives to the U.S. House. This is mandated in the Constitution. Though not also mandated - nor even mentioned in the Constitution - each state has chosen to carve itself into districts and have each member of the their House delegation elected from the people in these districts. During the spring of 2012, the census compiled the latest round of numbers and this past spring, the Texas Legislature used it to draw these districts. Several decades ago, the Supreme Court took the additional step of mandating that each district be the same size in order to ensure equal representation.
This is where things get interesting.
The data compiled by the U.S. Census department is nuanced enough to allow district boundaries to be drawn in such a way as to give an advantage to one group (those with control over the districting process) at the expense of others (those who lack such control). The term used for this process is gerrymandering, and while it is illegal, it is commonly practiced, especially here in Texas.
Minority groups in Texas - especially the Latino community - have argued that the plans drawn by the legislature dilute their political strength, illegally. While the census reports that most of the population growth in the state was due to greater numbers of Latinos in the state, the new redistricting plan does not allow the group any additional strength. So they have challenged the plan. In addition, the plan has not been approved (pre-cleared) under rules put in place in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. At the moment the plan is on hold until the Supreme Court rules on it early next year.
By now you should be a bit confused, and with good reason. Redistricting is the type of political issue that brings into play people and interests in each branch of government and on the national, state and local levels. All I want you to do right now is search through available information and determine who those multiple players are, what their role in the process is, and how they are in conflict with other another. I suggest simply doing a search on "Texas redistricting" to compile the information necessary to answer the question.
In other words, I want you to use this current issue to come to terms with the separated powers and the checks and balances, in addition to federalism. It may not make immediate sense to you, but it will.
Give me - at a minimum - 150 words.
Welcome 2301 4 Week Students
I never know quite what to make of students willing to spoil a nice break by taking a government class - but welcome aboard. We will begin the process of cramming 16 weeks worth of information in 4 weeks immediately. Refer to syllabus, get acquainted with the class' structure - it has a rhythm to it - and start reading.
This blog will be an important source of information to you, I'll post stories related to the topics we cover in class. This is also where you will find the weekly written assignments - which will be the post immediately following this one.
Be sure to become familiar with the range of links I have available on the left hand column. I will refer to them from time to time, but you should be able to find access to most any information you are interested in there. These are modified continually.
Anyway - let me know what questions you have and get to work.
This blog will be an important source of information to you, I'll post stories related to the topics we cover in class. This is also where you will find the weekly written assignments - which will be the post immediately following this one.
Be sure to become familiar with the range of links I have available on the left hand column. I will refer to them from time to time, but you should be able to find access to most any information you are interested in there. These are modified continually.
Anyway - let me know what questions you have and get to work.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Is democracy being theatened in Europe?
Paul Krugman thinks so:
Last month the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development documented a sharp drop in public support for democracy in the “new E.U.” countries, the nations that joined the European Union after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Not surprisingly, the loss of faith in democracy has been greatest in the countries that suffered the deepest economic slumps.
And in at least one nation, Hungary, democratic institutions are being undermined as we speak.
One of Hungary’s major parties, Jobbik, is a nightmare out of the 1930s: it’s anti-Roma (Gypsy), it’s anti-Semitic, and it even had a paramilitary arm. But the immediate threat comes from Fidesz, the governing center-right party.
Fidesz won an overwhelming Parliamentary majority last year, at least partly for economic reasons; Hungary isn’t on the euro, but it suffered severely because of large-scale borrowing in foreign currencies and also, to be frank, thanks to mismanagement and corruption on the part of the then-governing left-liberal parties. Now Fidesz, which rammed through a new Constitution last spring on a party-line vote, seems bent on establishing a permanent hold on power.
He presents a textbook case in how to establish a tyrannical totalitarian government:
Fidesz [the new ruling party in Hungary] is relying on overlapping measures to suppress opposition. A proposed election law creates gerrymandered districts designed to make it almost impossible for other parties to form a government; judicial independence has been compromised, and the courts packed with party loyalists; state-run media have been converted into party organs, and there’s a crackdown on independent media; and a proposed constitutional addendum would effectively criminalize the leading leftist party. Taken together, all this amounts to the re-establishment of authoritarian rule, under a paper-thin veneer of democracy, in the heart of Europe.
Last month the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development documented a sharp drop in public support for democracy in the “new E.U.” countries, the nations that joined the European Union after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Not surprisingly, the loss of faith in democracy has been greatest in the countries that suffered the deepest economic slumps.
And in at least one nation, Hungary, democratic institutions are being undermined as we speak.
One of Hungary’s major parties, Jobbik, is a nightmare out of the 1930s: it’s anti-Roma (Gypsy), it’s anti-Semitic, and it even had a paramilitary arm. But the immediate threat comes from Fidesz, the governing center-right party.
Fidesz won an overwhelming Parliamentary majority last year, at least partly for economic reasons; Hungary isn’t on the euro, but it suffered severely because of large-scale borrowing in foreign currencies and also, to be frank, thanks to mismanagement and corruption on the part of the then-governing left-liberal parties. Now Fidesz, which rammed through a new Constitution last spring on a party-line vote, seems bent on establishing a permanent hold on power.
He presents a textbook case in how to establish a tyrannical totalitarian government:
Fidesz [the new ruling party in Hungary] is relying on overlapping measures to suppress opposition. A proposed election law creates gerrymandered districts designed to make it almost impossible for other parties to form a government; judicial independence has been compromised, and the courts packed with party loyalists; state-run media have been converted into party organs, and there’s a crackdown on independent media; and a proposed constitutional addendum would effectively criminalize the leading leftist party. Taken together, all this amounts to the re-establishment of authoritarian rule, under a paper-thin veneer of democracy, in the heart of Europe.
The State Republican Executive Committee reconsiders Rick Perry
The Dallas Morning News has an informative piece on the State Republican Executive Committee, which is a group with the state Republican Party composed of people elected in each state senate district (the state Democratic Party has a similar group). State executive committees serve as the state party's governing body.
The story argues that as a group they are disappointed in the governor's standing in the 2012 election.
- List of members from the Texas GOP website.
- Here is a page from one of the Republican committee with links to resolutions debated by the party,
The story argues that as a group they are disappointed in the governor's standing in the 2012 election.
- List of members from the Texas GOP website.
- Here is a page from one of the Republican committee with links to resolutions debated by the party,
Top Lobbyists - 2011
The National Journal came out with its list of the top DC lobbyists. Following a theme we hit in both 2301 and 2302, many are former members of Congress - others were once top staff members:
The former lawmakers are:
• Sen. John Breaux - Breaux Lott Leadership Group & Patton Boggs
• Rep. Thomas Downey - Downey McGrath Group
• Rep. Victor Fazio - Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
• Rep. Richard Gephardt - Gephardt Group Government Affairs
• Sen. Tim Hutchinson - Dickstein Shapiro
• Rep. Robert Livingston - The Livingston Group
• Sen. Trent Lott - Breaux Lott Leadership Group & Patton Boggs
• Rep. James McCrery, III - Capitol Counsel
• Rep. Bill Paxon - Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
• Rep. Vin Weber - Clark & Weinstock
The former lawmakers are:
• Sen. John Breaux - Breaux Lott Leadership Group & Patton Boggs
• Rep. Thomas Downey - Downey McGrath Group
• Rep. Victor Fazio - Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
• Rep. Richard Gephardt - Gephardt Group Government Affairs
• Sen. Tim Hutchinson - Dickstein Shapiro
• Rep. Robert Livingston - The Livingston Group
• Sen. Trent Lott - Breaux Lott Leadership Group & Patton Boggs
• Rep. James McCrery, III - Capitol Counsel
• Rep. Bill Paxon - Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
• Rep. Vin Weber - Clark & Weinstock
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Bloggers are not protected by shield laws
In 2301 we covered shield laws, which are laws that give "reporters some means of protection against being forced to disclose confidential information or sources in state court." These laws recognize that a principle role of the press is to shine a spotlight - for the benefit of consumers - on activities that otherwise would not be covered. This creates a dilemma. Sometimes a report might focus on illegal activity, which prosecutors might wish to investigate, and we might as a society wish to be investigated. But we would not have been aware of the activity had the reporter not been able to guarantee confidentiality to his or her sources.
So the right to information (which of course is not clearly stated anywhere in the Constitution, just inferred as being part of the freedom of the press) can come into conflict with the responsibilities of the executive branch - law enforcement - to enforce the laws passed by the legislature. This is a great example of the balances that have to be struck between the competing needs of society - in this case the need to be informed versus the need to be protected from criminal activity.
Journalists, by being members of the press, are the agents that dig up and distribute information about societal issues, serve a privileged function since they provide information for us to chew on, but a recent case in Montana points out a consequence of technological change. Remember that journalists have a privileged status because they are members of "the press" people in a position to distribute information - but since most people own computers, or other devises that send out information, we can all be journalists in a sense.
Or can we?
In the case, a woman who calls herself an "investigative blogger" and has blogged repeatedly and negatively about a financial firm she is upset with, has lost a libel suit. The court ruled that Montana's shield laws did not apply to her. She is not a journalist.
Expect an appeal to the Supreme Court. As with the GPS case we discussed over the fall, the Supreme Court continues to wrestle with the impact our hyper communicative, digital environment has on the application of Constitutional principles.
- Montana Shield Law Protects Anonymous Commenters.
- Federal judge: Montana blogger is not journalist.
So the right to information (which of course is not clearly stated anywhere in the Constitution, just inferred as being part of the freedom of the press) can come into conflict with the responsibilities of the executive branch - law enforcement - to enforce the laws passed by the legislature. This is a great example of the balances that have to be struck between the competing needs of society - in this case the need to be informed versus the need to be protected from criminal activity.
Journalists, by being members of the press, are the agents that dig up and distribute information about societal issues, serve a privileged function since they provide information for us to chew on, but a recent case in Montana points out a consequence of technological change. Remember that journalists have a privileged status because they are members of "the press" people in a position to distribute information - but since most people own computers, or other devises that send out information, we can all be journalists in a sense.
Or can we?
In the case, a woman who calls herself an "investigative blogger" and has blogged repeatedly and negatively about a financial firm she is upset with, has lost a libel suit. The court ruled that Montana's shield laws did not apply to her. She is not a journalist.
Expect an appeal to the Supreme Court. As with the GPS case we discussed over the fall, the Supreme Court continues to wrestle with the impact our hyper communicative, digital environment has on the application of Constitutional principles.
- Montana Shield Law Protects Anonymous Commenters.
- Federal judge: Montana blogger is not journalist.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Friday, December 9, 2011
RIP Iowa Caucus
The Daily Beast's Howard Kurtz wonders if the debate format the Republican field has used to draw attention to themselves has made the Iowa Caucus - and the traditional boots on the ground campaign - a thing of the past:
The legend of the Iowa caucuses is that they require a candidate to practically establish residency in the state, meet voters in their living rooms several times—once is not nearly enough—and build a ground machine that will entice people to brave the winter cold for three-hour community meetings.
The legend of the Iowa caucuses is that they require a candidate to practically establish residency in the state, meet voters in their living rooms several times—once is not nearly enough—and build a ground machine that will entice people to brave the winter cold for three-hour community meetings.
But this year is different as the once-broke Gingrich has rocketed to the top of the Iowa polls, with with a New York Times poll showing him the overwhelming choice.
Mitt Romney, too, has barely set foot in the state. The county
commissioners and power brokers who are accustomed to having their ring
kissed suddenly matter far less than Fox News bookers. Iowa is now the first outpost of what has essentially become a televised demolition derby.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
The Confrontation Clause
In recent years the Supreme Court has given additional attention to the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. Defendants can confront their accusers during trials. What if, however, the evidence presented is expert testimony created by analysts? Do they always have to show up? And if they do, what about the costs that that requirement imposes?
The recently argued case of Williams v. Illinois presents this question to the court.
- The Bill of Rights Doesn't Come Cheap.
- ScotusBlog: Williams v. Illinois.
- Sixth Amendment's Confronation Clause.
The recently argued case of Williams v. Illinois presents this question to the court.
- The Bill of Rights Doesn't Come Cheap.
- ScotusBlog: Williams v. Illinois.
- Sixth Amendment's Confronation Clause.
Gingrich's Influence on Congress
Nate Silver has a piece today that points out Newt Gingrich's influence on a principle change in Congress in recent history. Gingrich helped forge the 1994 movement that led to the Republican Party's control of Congress for the first time since 1954. Silver charts the ideological shift that happen as a consequence. He points out that this waqs the moment that "finally broke the New Deal coalition that had dominated American politics for more than a half-century, moving policy substantially to the right."
Is Justice for Sale? Continued...
In 2302 we finished our section on the judiciary by looking at judicial elections and the ongoing question whether large contributions to judicial elections - especially those with cases in the courts - distort the justice system and make it more likely that judges make decisions favorable to those interests rather than in the disinterest manner which is supposed to be a hallmark of the judiciary.
Here's an NYT story about such influence:
An examination of the Ohio Supreme Court by The New York Times found that its justices routinely sat on cases after receiving campaign contributions from the parties involved or from groups that filed supporting briefs. On average, they voted in favor of contributors 70 percent of the time.
Here's an NYT story about such influence:
An examination of the Ohio Supreme Court by The New York Times found that its justices routinely sat on cases after receiving campaign contributions from the parties involved or from groups that filed supporting briefs. On average, they voted in favor of contributors 70 percent of the time.
The Senate Block Several Obama Nominees
More tales of checking and balancing:
First: The Senate on Thursday blocked President Obama’s nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as filibustering Republicans who oppose the very powers of the new agency successfully challenged one of the administration’s main responses to the financial crisis.
The nomination of Richard Cordray was rejected after Democrats failed to achieve the 60 votes they needed to move his nomination forward. The vote was 53 yes, 45 no.
Second: Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked confirmation of Caitlin J. Halligan, a prominent New York lawyer, to be a federal appeals court judge, raising the question of whether a political deal to prevent the filibuster of most judicial nominations has broken down.
Democrats failed to pick up the 60 votes needed under Senate rules to break a filibuster of a confirmation vote for Ms. Halligan, a former New York State solicitor general. The vote to break the filibuster was 54 to 45 and was largely along party lines; only one Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, favored allowing an up-or-down vote on Ms. Halligan, while no Democrats voted against it.
Third: Dr. Donald M. Berwick, the official in charge of Medicare and Medicaid, who became a symbol of all that Republicans dislike in President Obama’s health care policies, said on Wednesday that he was resigning.
Mr. Obama first nominated Dr. Berwick in April 2010, but he never received a Senate confirmation hearing. More than 40 Senate Republicans urged the White House to withdraw the nomination last spring, and many vowed to block confirmation.
First: The Senate on Thursday blocked President Obama’s nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as filibustering Republicans who oppose the very powers of the new agency successfully challenged one of the administration’s main responses to the financial crisis.
The nomination of Richard Cordray was rejected after Democrats failed to achieve the 60 votes they needed to move his nomination forward. The vote was 53 yes, 45 no.
Second: Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked confirmation of Caitlin J. Halligan, a prominent New York lawyer, to be a federal appeals court judge, raising the question of whether a political deal to prevent the filibuster of most judicial nominations has broken down.
Democrats failed to pick up the 60 votes needed under Senate rules to break a filibuster of a confirmation vote for Ms. Halligan, a former New York State solicitor general. The vote to break the filibuster was 54 to 45 and was largely along party lines; only one Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, favored allowing an up-or-down vote on Ms. Halligan, while no Democrats voted against it.
Third: Dr. Donald M. Berwick, the official in charge of Medicare and Medicaid, who became a symbol of all that Republicans dislike in President Obama’s health care policies, said on Wednesday that he was resigning.
Mr. Obama first nominated Dr. Berwick in April 2010, but he never received a Senate confirmation hearing. More than 40 Senate Republicans urged the White House to withdraw the nomination last spring, and many vowed to block confirmation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)