For 2305, a few links for background:
- Wikipedia: 116th United States Congress.
- Ballotpedia: 116th United States Congress.
- Congress.gov: congressional activity.
- C-Span: Members of the 116th Congress.
Friday, August 30, 2019
The Hartford Convention
In 1814 the Federalists once again tried to change the constitution, though not as radically as they were able to do in 1787. It was an attempt to roll back some of the policies of the Democrat- Republicans, This attempt failed, and ultimately led to the end of the Federalist Party.
- click here for the Wikipedia article on the convention.
Here's a list of their proposals:
- Prohibiting any trade embargo lasting over 60 days;
- Requiring a two-thirds Congressional majority for declaration of offensive war, admission of a new state, or interdiction of foreign commerce;
- Removing the three-fifths representation advantage of the South;
- Limiting future presidents to one term;
- Requiring each president to be from a different state than his predecessor. (This provision was aimed directly at the dominance of Virginia in the presidency since 1800.)
- click here for the Wikipedia article on the convention.
Here's a list of their proposals:
- Prohibiting any trade embargo lasting over 60 days;
- Requiring a two-thirds Congressional majority for declaration of offensive war, admission of a new state, or interdiction of foreign commerce;
- Removing the three-fifths representation advantage of the South;
- Limiting future presidents to one term;
- Requiring each president to be from a different state than his predecessor. (This provision was aimed directly at the dominance of Virginia in the presidency since 1800.)
From Vox: Here are the states that treat workers the best — and the worst
For our look at federalism - state control of policy - in both 2305 and 2306.
- click here for the article.
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19129528/Screen_Shot_2019_08_29_at_1.19.58_PM.png)
- OxFam: BEST AND WORST STATES TO WORK IN AMERICA 2019
- click here for the article.
- OxFam: BEST AND WORST STATES TO WORK IN AMERICA 2019
Elections in Israel 2015
A great example of proportional representation.
The electoral system most commonly used in western democracies.
Proposed amendments to the Texas Constitution that didn't pass the legislature
Texas Disaster Reinvestment Board Bonds Amendment (2019)
Texas Generate Reoccurring Oil Wealth (GROW) Fund Amendment (2019)
Texas Legacy Fund Amendment (2019)
Texas Mental and Behavioral Health Research Fund Amendment (2019)
Texas Power to Invest and Manage Public Funds Amendment (2019)
Texas Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouse of Military Member Amendment (2019)
Texas Property Tax Freeze for Surviving Spouse of Disabled Person Amendment (2019)
Texas Provide for Daylight Saving Time Referendum Amendment (2019)
Texas Year-Round Standard or Daylight Saving Time Measure (2019
Texas Generate Reoccurring Oil Wealth (GROW) Fund Amendment (2019)
Texas Legacy Fund Amendment (2019)
Texas Mental and Behavioral Health Research Fund Amendment (2019)
Texas Power to Invest and Manage Public Funds Amendment (2019)
Texas Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouse of Military Member Amendment (2019)
Texas Property Tax Freeze for Surviving Spouse of Disabled Person Amendment (2019)
Texas Provide for Daylight Saving Time Referendum Amendment (2019)
Texas Year-Round Standard or Daylight Saving Time Measure (2019
Thursday, August 29, 2019
A few links related to amendments to the Texas Constitution
2306 students might find these helpful for your essay.
- Texas 2019 ballot measures.
- Constitutional amendments proposedfor November 2019 ballot.
- Analyses of proposed constitutional amendments.
I'll add more as the semester progresses.
- Texas 2019 ballot measures.
- Constitutional amendments proposedfor November 2019 ballot.
- Analyses of proposed constitutional amendments.
I'll add more as the semester progresses.
Wednesday, August 28, 2019
From thre Texas Tribune: A new Texas law criminalizes sending unwanted nudes. Lawyers say it might be difficult to enforce.
More confusion over new laws passed by the legislature this spring.
- Click here for the article.
A few years ago, Dallas resident and mother Brandy Davis was reentering the online dating scene. After matching with a "seemingly nice" man, the two exchanged phone numbers. Then, one afternoon while Davis was at work, the man sent her an unrequested nude photo of himself.
"I remember thinking, 'If this is going to come unexpected like this, it could come at a time when my son has my phone,'" Davis testified during a May Senate hearing. "I was appalled ... because nobody should be subjected to that."
House Bill 2789, signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in May, aims to put an end to experiences like Davis'. The law goes into effect Sept. 1 and makes the electronic transmission of sexually explicit material a Class C misdemeanor, with a maximum $500 fine, when the recipient hasn't provided consent. The law will make Texas one of the first states to take a stand against sending sexually explicit images, which about 40% of women report receiving without consent.
The law won't apply just to texts, but also to what's sent over other platforms like email, dating apps and social media.
- Click here for the article.
A few years ago, Dallas resident and mother Brandy Davis was reentering the online dating scene. After matching with a "seemingly nice" man, the two exchanged phone numbers. Then, one afternoon while Davis was at work, the man sent her an unrequested nude photo of himself.
"I remember thinking, 'If this is going to come unexpected like this, it could come at a time when my son has my phone,'" Davis testified during a May Senate hearing. "I was appalled ... because nobody should be subjected to that."
House Bill 2789, signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in May, aims to put an end to experiences like Davis'. The law goes into effect Sept. 1 and makes the electronic transmission of sexually explicit material a Class C misdemeanor, with a maximum $500 fine, when the recipient hasn't provided consent. The law will make Texas one of the first states to take a stand against sending sexually explicit images, which about 40% of women report receiving without consent.
The law won't apply just to texts, but also to what's sent over other platforms like email, dating apps and social media.
The Eleven Year Tyranny
Comparisons are being made ....
- Click here for the article.
The Eleven Year Tyranny was a period of political unrest in England lasting from 1629 to 1640. This was started because King Charles I thought he did not need Parliament to rule his country. Charles’ problem stemmed from personal hubris; he felt that God had chosen him to lead a nation and that he needed absolutism to rule efficiently. This can be linked to Paradise Lost as Satan felt that he was better than God and that he should rule Heaven.
In 1628, Parliament passed the Petition of Right, which limited the amount that the king can spend. This meant that the King needed the consent from parliament before spending any funds for unusual causes. King Charles I believed that this violated God’s decision to make him the King, and that Parliament was just trying to secure more power for themselves. This distaste for each other continued to fester as the separation between the King and Parliament grew. On March 2, 1629 King Charles I dissolved Parliament, and then had them arrested and labeled as traitors to the crown. With this dismissal he assumed all rights to military action and to make any policies that he wanted to. The advantage for the King for this dismissal was that he now had excess funding to go toward his military, instead of funding Parliament. This gave him an edge in public approval because he increased military support in Germany for the War. To the uneducated commoners of England, this was seen as unforeseen prosperity during war. Conversely, things were actually getting worse because the majority of the King’s decisions were failures. This eventually caused political unrest in England.
For more:
- Personal Rule.
- Prorogation.
- Click here for the article.
The Eleven Year Tyranny was a period of political unrest in England lasting from 1629 to 1640. This was started because King Charles I thought he did not need Parliament to rule his country. Charles’ problem stemmed from personal hubris; he felt that God had chosen him to lead a nation and that he needed absolutism to rule efficiently. This can be linked to Paradise Lost as Satan felt that he was better than God and that he should rule Heaven.
In 1628, Parliament passed the Petition of Right, which limited the amount that the king can spend. This meant that the King needed the consent from parliament before spending any funds for unusual causes. King Charles I believed that this violated God’s decision to make him the King, and that Parliament was just trying to secure more power for themselves. This distaste for each other continued to fester as the separation between the King and Parliament grew. On March 2, 1629 King Charles I dissolved Parliament, and then had them arrested and labeled as traitors to the crown. With this dismissal he assumed all rights to military action and to make any policies that he wanted to. The advantage for the King for this dismissal was that he now had excess funding to go toward his military, instead of funding Parliament. This gave him an edge in public approval because he increased military support in Germany for the War. To the uneducated commoners of England, this was seen as unforeseen prosperity during war. Conversely, things were actually getting worse because the majority of the King’s decisions were failures. This eventually caused political unrest in England.
For more:
- Personal Rule.
- Prorogation.
From Vox: Boris Johnson just suspended Parliament over Brexit. Here’s what’s going on.
This cannot happen under our Constitutional system.
- Click here for the article.
Who had “proroguing Parliament” on their Brexit bingo card?
On Wednesday, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson asked Queen Elizabeth II to suspend — otherwise known as “prorogue” — Parliament until October 14, in what very much looked like an attempt to prevent members of Parliament (MPs) from blocking a no-deal Brexit before the October 31 deadline.
The queen has approved Johnson’s request, which was mostly a formality anyway. (There was practically no chance that the queen, who stays above the political fray, would deny Johnson’s request, though technically she could have.) Now Parliament will be suspended for five weeks, from September 9 at the earliest, or September 12 at the latest, until October 14.
Here’s what this means in practice: Members of Parliament will now have a very narrow window to a) debate, scrutinize, and pass a Brexit deal if there’s one on offer; or b) stop the UK from exiting the European Union without an agreement in place on October 31.
Leaving the EU without a deal is something Johnson has said he’s willing and ready to do, but MPs largely oppose that route because of the potential economic fallout.
Johnson has denied that putting Parliament on a five-week break as the United Kingdom is in the middle of a national crisis over Brexit has anything to do with the national crisis over Brexit. In a letter to lawmakers, the prime minister said this legislative session had to end, as it’s one of the longest in history.
“I therefore intend to bring forward a new bold and ambitious domestic legislative agenda for the renewal of our country after Brexit,” Johnson wrote. “There will be a significant Brexit legislative programme to get through but that should be no excuse for a lack of ambition!”
Not many MPs are buying Johnson’s excuse. Some are accusing him of flinging the UK into a constitutional crisis.
- Click here for the article.
Who had “proroguing Parliament” on their Brexit bingo card?
On Wednesday, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson asked Queen Elizabeth II to suspend — otherwise known as “prorogue” — Parliament until October 14, in what very much looked like an attempt to prevent members of Parliament (MPs) from blocking a no-deal Brexit before the October 31 deadline.
The queen has approved Johnson’s request, which was mostly a formality anyway. (There was practically no chance that the queen, who stays above the political fray, would deny Johnson’s request, though technically she could have.) Now Parliament will be suspended for five weeks, from September 9 at the earliest, or September 12 at the latest, until October 14.
Here’s what this means in practice: Members of Parliament will now have a very narrow window to a) debate, scrutinize, and pass a Brexit deal if there’s one on offer; or b) stop the UK from exiting the European Union without an agreement in place on October 31.
Leaving the EU without a deal is something Johnson has said he’s willing and ready to do, but MPs largely oppose that route because of the potential economic fallout.
Johnson has denied that putting Parliament on a five-week break as the United Kingdom is in the middle of a national crisis over Brexit has anything to do with the national crisis over Brexit. In a letter to lawmakers, the prime minister said this legislative session had to end, as it’s one of the longest in history.
“I therefore intend to bring forward a new bold and ambitious domestic legislative agenda for the renewal of our country after Brexit,” Johnson wrote. “There will be a significant Brexit legislative programme to get through but that should be no excuse for a lack of ambition!”
Not many MPs are buying Johnson’s excuse. Some are accusing him of flinging the UK into a constitutional crisis.
Monday, August 26, 2019
From the Texas Monthly: Here’s What Texas DAs Think of the New Hemp Law that Effectively Decriminalized Pot
For 2306:
- Click here for the article.
. . . the five most populous counties—Harris, Dallas, Travis, Tarrant, and Bexar—have announced that they’re dismissing hundreds of charges and will decline to prosecute minor marijuana possession in the future. While the reactions of prosecutors in the big cities have garnered most of the headlines, Texas Monthly reached out to prosecutors for every county in Texas seeking to find out how they plan to cope with this new legal landscape.
Officials with 93 of Texas’s 254 counties responded to inquiries. (Officials from the remaining 161 counties either did not respond or declined to comment.) There was a patchwork of responses to the new law from prosecutors across the state. One clear pattern: Urban counties seem to be more eager to drop misdemeanor pot prosecutions than their rural and suburban counterparts. Nine of the state’s twelve most populous counties—representing nearly 15 million people, or more than half of Texas’s total population—will no longer prosecute low-level marijuana cases, and some have pledged to dismiss pending cases.
Perhaps reluctant to shed a tough-on-crime approach popular among Texas conservatives, some officials in smaller counties were critical of their urban peers dismissing cases. Bill Helwig, DA of Yoakum County, a square patch of West Texas with population 8,500, said the new law likely won’t affect how marijuana cases are prosecuted there. “We’re a very conservative county, and I believe that rural counties may view the situation from a slightly different set of glasses,” he said.
Kendall County DA Nicole Bishop, whose county just north of San Antonio has a population of about 45,000, likewise intends to continue misdemeanor marijuana prosecutions. Her office also will request restitution from any defendants who insist on lab testing, including seeking more severe punishment in plea deals. “I will not act as an unelected legislator by unilaterally deciding what laws I deem worth it to enforce,” she said. “I will not abandon my sworn duty to follow the law.”
Yet the new law could disproportionately strain the resources of these smaller counties, which are more likely to lack the equipment and the funds to outsource testing. In Beaumont’s Jefferson County, for example, the crime lab recently requested nearly $500,000 for new equipment, employees, and training for distinguishing marijuana from hemp, according to the Beaumont Enterprise. Steve Houston, the DA in Brewster County in far West Texas, said the Legislature created another unfunded mandate for local governments. “It requires testing, and they didn’t provide funding for testing,” Houston told Texas Monthly. “I’m not paying for a bunch of testing.”
- Click here for the article.
. . . the five most populous counties—Harris, Dallas, Travis, Tarrant, and Bexar—have announced that they’re dismissing hundreds of charges and will decline to prosecute minor marijuana possession in the future. While the reactions of prosecutors in the big cities have garnered most of the headlines, Texas Monthly reached out to prosecutors for every county in Texas seeking to find out how they plan to cope with this new legal landscape.
Officials with 93 of Texas’s 254 counties responded to inquiries. (Officials from the remaining 161 counties either did not respond or declined to comment.) There was a patchwork of responses to the new law from prosecutors across the state. One clear pattern: Urban counties seem to be more eager to drop misdemeanor pot prosecutions than their rural and suburban counterparts. Nine of the state’s twelve most populous counties—representing nearly 15 million people, or more than half of Texas’s total population—will no longer prosecute low-level marijuana cases, and some have pledged to dismiss pending cases.
Perhaps reluctant to shed a tough-on-crime approach popular among Texas conservatives, some officials in smaller counties were critical of their urban peers dismissing cases. Bill Helwig, DA of Yoakum County, a square patch of West Texas with population 8,500, said the new law likely won’t affect how marijuana cases are prosecuted there. “We’re a very conservative county, and I believe that rural counties may view the situation from a slightly different set of glasses,” he said.
Kendall County DA Nicole Bishop, whose county just north of San Antonio has a population of about 45,000, likewise intends to continue misdemeanor marijuana prosecutions. Her office also will request restitution from any defendants who insist on lab testing, including seeking more severe punishment in plea deals. “I will not act as an unelected legislator by unilaterally deciding what laws I deem worth it to enforce,” she said. “I will not abandon my sworn duty to follow the law.”
Yet the new law could disproportionately strain the resources of these smaller counties, which are more likely to lack the equipment and the funds to outsource testing. In Beaumont’s Jefferson County, for example, the crime lab recently requested nearly $500,000 for new equipment, employees, and training for distinguishing marijuana from hemp, according to the Beaumont Enterprise. Steve Houston, the DA in Brewster County in far West Texas, said the Legislature created another unfunded mandate for local governments. “It requires testing, and they didn’t provide funding for testing,” Houston told Texas Monthly. “I’m not paying for a bunch of testing.”
From the Texas Tribune: Gov. Greg Abbott selects former appeals court judge Jane Bland for Texas Supreme Court
For 2306
- Click here for the article.
Jane Bland, a former Republican appeals court judge in Houston who lost her seat in November amid a Democratic rout of urban-area appeals courts, is Gov. Greg Abbott’s pick for a vacancy on the Texas Supreme Court, he announced Monday.
Bland will assume the Place 6 seat of Justice Jeff Brown, a Republican who was confirmed late last month to the federal bench, after he formally resigns to begin his new post. Since the Legislature is not in session, she does not require confirmation by the Texas Senate, but will have to stand for election in 2020.
“Jane Bland is an experienced and proven legal expert whose respect for the Constitution is unmatched,” Abbott said. “As she assumes her new role on the Supreme Court, the people of Texas can rest assured that she will uphold the rule of law and be a good steward of the justice system. I am honored to appoint Jane to the highest court in Texas and am grateful for her service to our great state.”
Bland served as a judge for more than 20 years before becoming a partner at Vinson & Elkins, one of the state’s top law firms and a major contributor to Texas Supreme Court justices’ campaigns. A graduate of the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Texas School of Law, Bland became a trial court judge in Harris County in 1997, and was elevated to the appellate bench by an appointment from Gov. Rick Perry in 2003.
- Click here for the article.
Jane Bland, a former Republican appeals court judge in Houston who lost her seat in November amid a Democratic rout of urban-area appeals courts, is Gov. Greg Abbott’s pick for a vacancy on the Texas Supreme Court, he announced Monday.
Bland will assume the Place 6 seat of Justice Jeff Brown, a Republican who was confirmed late last month to the federal bench, after he formally resigns to begin his new post. Since the Legislature is not in session, she does not require confirmation by the Texas Senate, but will have to stand for election in 2020.
“Jane Bland is an experienced and proven legal expert whose respect for the Constitution is unmatched,” Abbott said. “As she assumes her new role on the Supreme Court, the people of Texas can rest assured that she will uphold the rule of law and be a good steward of the justice system. I am honored to appoint Jane to the highest court in Texas and am grateful for her service to our great state.”
Bland served as a judge for more than 20 years before becoming a partner at Vinson & Elkins, one of the state’s top law firms and a major contributor to Texas Supreme Court justices’ campaigns. A graduate of the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Texas School of Law, Bland became a trial court judge in Harris County in 1997, and was elevated to the appellate bench by an appointment from Gov. Rick Perry in 2003.
From the Texas Tribune: Texas leaders: Hemp law did not decriminalize marijuana
- Click here for the article.
Weeks after Texas prosecutors began dropping hundreds of marijuana cases and stopped actively pursuing criminal charges because of complications that arose from legalizing hemp, the state's leaders have stepped into the fray.
Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, House Speaker Dennis Bonnen and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, all Republicans, sent a letter Thursday to Texas district and county attorneys, emphasizing that a new hemp law does not decriminalize marijuana. They wrote that the prosecutors who have stepped back from marijuana charges after stating they cannot legally distinguish between legal hemp and marijuana without further testing — almost all of those in the state's most 10 populous counties — misunderstand the new law.
"Failing to enforce marijuana laws cannot be blamed on legislation that did not decriminalize marijuana in Texas," stated the letter.
House Bill 1325, which legalized hemp and hemp-derived products like CBD oil, soared through the Texas Legislature this year and was signed into law June 10 by Abbott. Since then, numerous Republican and Democratic district attorneys have said they can no longer actively pursue misdemeanor marijuana cases because the new law changed the definition of marijuana. Before, marijuana was defined as parts of the cannabis plant, but now it is only those parts that contain more than 0.3% of tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana that produces a high. Cannabis below that level is now hemp.
The attorneys and forensic experts have said equipment they have in public crime labs can't accurately prove how much THC is in cannabis. Circumstantial evidence, like the smell of marijuana, no longer gives them enough credibility in court, where defendants could claim the substance they possessed was instead hemp.
"The plant is the plant, so the stuff smells the same no matter the THC concentration," Lynn Garcia, general counsel with the Texas Forensic Science Commission, told The Texas Tribune earlier this week.
Weeks after Texas prosecutors began dropping hundreds of marijuana cases and stopped actively pursuing criminal charges because of complications that arose from legalizing hemp, the state's leaders have stepped into the fray.
Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, House Speaker Dennis Bonnen and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, all Republicans, sent a letter Thursday to Texas district and county attorneys, emphasizing that a new hemp law does not decriminalize marijuana. They wrote that the prosecutors who have stepped back from marijuana charges after stating they cannot legally distinguish between legal hemp and marijuana without further testing — almost all of those in the state's most 10 populous counties — misunderstand the new law.
"Failing to enforce marijuana laws cannot be blamed on legislation that did not decriminalize marijuana in Texas," stated the letter.
House Bill 1325, which legalized hemp and hemp-derived products like CBD oil, soared through the Texas Legislature this year and was signed into law June 10 by Abbott. Since then, numerous Republican and Democratic district attorneys have said they can no longer actively pursue misdemeanor marijuana cases because the new law changed the definition of marijuana. Before, marijuana was defined as parts of the cannabis plant, but now it is only those parts that contain more than 0.3% of tetrahydrocannabinol, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana that produces a high. Cannabis below that level is now hemp.
The attorneys and forensic experts have said equipment they have in public crime labs can't accurately prove how much THC is in cannabis. Circumstantial evidence, like the smell of marijuana, no longer gives them enough credibility in court, where defendants could claim the substance they possessed was instead hemp.
"The plant is the plant, so the stuff smells the same no matter the THC concentration," Lynn Garcia, general counsel with the Texas Forensic Science Commission, told The Texas Tribune earlier this week.
Thursday, August 22, 2019
From the Houston Chronicle: Harris County Flood Control District proposes tunnel idea to drain stormwaters
For 2306, a look at a local government.
- Click here for the article.
The Harris County Flood Control District is exploring the possibility of building several massive, deep tunnels aimed at keeping storm water out of flood-prone neighborhoods and carry it underground for miles to the Houston Ship Channel during major storms.
Never before tried around Houston, the project likely would cost several billion dollars and it is not clear where the money would come from, officials said. Specialized machines methodically digging 100 to 200 feet underground would take several years to complete the tunnels, which would seek to drain floodwaters from bayous across the county.
Officials with the flood control district said the idea could be a bold answer to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey, and dramatically improve Houston’s defenses against deadly floods where other strategies have fallen short.
"What the flood control district has been doing for decades doesn't occur fast enough or it doesn't have the benefits that the public really wants," said Matthew Zeve, director of operations at the flood control district. "We've been challenged to try to think of new ideas and new strategies and this is an answer to that challenge."
Commissioners Court is slated to vote Tuesday on whether to pursue a feasibility study to examine the tunnel proposal in detail, charting out the exact paths of the tunnels, where intake shafts would be located and how to address any environmental or structural constraints.
The full project envisions a network of tunnels across the county to carry water from several of Houston’s waterways, including White Oak Bayou, Hunting Bayou, Greens Bayou, Halls Bayou, Buffalo Bayou, Clear Creek and Cypress Creek. The goal under the plan would be for those waterways to be able to keep a 100-year storm event within their banks.
See also: Tunnels could be a viable solution to flooding in Houston.
Click here for the Harris County Flood Control District.
- Click here for the article.
The Harris County Flood Control District is exploring the possibility of building several massive, deep tunnels aimed at keeping storm water out of flood-prone neighborhoods and carry it underground for miles to the Houston Ship Channel during major storms.
Never before tried around Houston, the project likely would cost several billion dollars and it is not clear where the money would come from, officials said. Specialized machines methodically digging 100 to 200 feet underground would take several years to complete the tunnels, which would seek to drain floodwaters from bayous across the county.
Officials with the flood control district said the idea could be a bold answer to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey, and dramatically improve Houston’s defenses against deadly floods where other strategies have fallen short.
"What the flood control district has been doing for decades doesn't occur fast enough or it doesn't have the benefits that the public really wants," said Matthew Zeve, director of operations at the flood control district. "We've been challenged to try to think of new ideas and new strategies and this is an answer to that challenge."
Commissioners Court is slated to vote Tuesday on whether to pursue a feasibility study to examine the tunnel proposal in detail, charting out the exact paths of the tunnels, where intake shafts would be located and how to address any environmental or structural constraints.
The full project envisions a network of tunnels across the county to carry water from several of Houston’s waterways, including White Oak Bayou, Hunting Bayou, Greens Bayou, Halls Bayou, Buffalo Bayou, Clear Creek and Cypress Creek. The goal under the plan would be for those waterways to be able to keep a 100-year storm event within their banks.
See also: Tunnels could be a viable solution to flooding in Houston.
Click here for the Harris County Flood Control District.
From the Atlantic: They Just Wanted to Entertain - AM stations mainly wanted to keep listeners engaged—but ended up remaking the Republican Party.
For 2305, an interesting look at the relationship between the media and political parties.
- Click here for the article.
Although leading Republicans were slow to catch on to the political potential of the medium, by the mid-1990s, talk radio was an integral element of GOP communications strategies. It provided a boost for Republicans as they pushed to enact an agenda and worked to win elections. Republicans, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich, pumped information to hosts, chatted with them regularly, and generally saw talk radio as an ideal way to reach their base with a message and learn how voters around the country felt about key issues.
Many on the left surmised that the hosts were puppets, plugging whichever policies Gingrich and others wanted them to. But selling the GOP message was never the hosts’ top priority. In my research into the history of conservative talk radio, the executives, producers, and hosts whom I interviewed told me over and over that their main goal was to produce the best radio show each day, one that could command the largest audience possible that tuned in for the longest possible time.
Over time, this focus on the commercial imperatives of AM radio would transform politics. To keep audiences engaged and entertained, hosts grew more and more strident as the years passed, depicting politics as warfare—and started targeting moderates in the Republican Party.
- Click here for the article.
Although leading Republicans were slow to catch on to the political potential of the medium, by the mid-1990s, talk radio was an integral element of GOP communications strategies. It provided a boost for Republicans as they pushed to enact an agenda and worked to win elections. Republicans, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich, pumped information to hosts, chatted with them regularly, and generally saw talk radio as an ideal way to reach their base with a message and learn how voters around the country felt about key issues.
Many on the left surmised that the hosts were puppets, plugging whichever policies Gingrich and others wanted them to. But selling the GOP message was never the hosts’ top priority. In my research into the history of conservative talk radio, the executives, producers, and hosts whom I interviewed told me over and over that their main goal was to produce the best radio show each day, one that could command the largest audience possible that tuned in for the longest possible time.
Over time, this focus on the commercial imperatives of AM radio would transform politics. To keep audiences engaged and entertained, hosts grew more and more strident as the years passed, depicting politics as warfare—and started targeting moderates in the Republican Party.
Wednesday, August 21, 2019
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
From the Bulwark: New Polls Show That Trump Should Be Afraid. Very Very Afraid.
And this is from a conservative news source. The article taps into much of what we will cover over the semester in 2305.
- Click here for the article.
Here's a small selection from it:
Back in July, when the NBC/WSJ poll had him at 45 percent approval, Trump was not cracking 42 percent in the head-to-head matchups against Democrats. Serious political handicappers should keep a close eye on whether this “inverted yield curve” takes hold and drags down Trump’s re-election prospects.
In addition, pundits should stop making the mistake that Trump can carry the Electoral College while securing under 42 percent of the popular vote, instead focusing far greater attention on the fact that Trump has a hardening majority of the American electorate opposing his re-election. In fact pundits—as well as the president himself—misunderstand how he pulled off the upset in 2016.
The truth is that Trump’s base did not elect him. His base brought him close, but what paved the road for the inside straight that secured his majority in the Electoral College, was a late swing away from Hillary among suburban women, middle-aged Hispanic men, those with some college but not a four year degree, and independents, combined with a drop in the black turnout. Trump is weaker today than he was in November 2016 in each of those demographic subsets, and the economic uncertainty and distress in the bond markets are affecting the investment accounts of those older voters Trump needs to have any chance of mounting a comeback.
Relevant Terms:
political pundits
American electorate
Republicans
Democrats
polling
public opinion
pollsters
sample
approval/disapproval ratings
self described liberals/conservatives
margin of error
Electoral College
factions
demographics
voter turnout
- Click here for the article.
Here's a small selection from it:
Back in July, when the NBC/WSJ poll had him at 45 percent approval, Trump was not cracking 42 percent in the head-to-head matchups against Democrats. Serious political handicappers should keep a close eye on whether this “inverted yield curve” takes hold and drags down Trump’s re-election prospects.
In addition, pundits should stop making the mistake that Trump can carry the Electoral College while securing under 42 percent of the popular vote, instead focusing far greater attention on the fact that Trump has a hardening majority of the American electorate opposing his re-election. In fact pundits—as well as the president himself—misunderstand how he pulled off the upset in 2016.
The truth is that Trump’s base did not elect him. His base brought him close, but what paved the road for the inside straight that secured his majority in the Electoral College, was a late swing away from Hillary among suburban women, middle-aged Hispanic men, those with some college but not a four year degree, and independents, combined with a drop in the black turnout. Trump is weaker today than he was in November 2016 in each of those demographic subsets, and the economic uncertainty and distress in the bond markets are affecting the investment accounts of those older voters Trump needs to have any chance of mounting a comeback.
Relevant Terms:
political pundits
American electorate
Republicans
Democrats
polling
public opinion
pollsters
sample
approval/disapproval ratings
self described liberals/conservatives
margin of error
Electoral College
factions
demographics
voter turnout
From the Texas Tribune: Dustin Burrows resigns as Texas House GOP Caucus chairman amid allegations of targeting Republicans
For 2306 students primarily, a story that highlights the intersection of politics and government.
- Click here for it.
State Rep. Dustin Burrows of Lubbock has resigned as chair of the Texas House GOP Caucus amid allegations that he and House Speaker Dennis Bonnen planned to politically target members from their own party in the 2020 primaries.
Burrows' departure marks the largest fallout yet since the accusations surfaced.
On Friday, the caucus executive committee sent an email to members saying that it had "met and accepted" Burrows' resignation as caucus chair. The email, which also announced that state Rep. Stephanie Klick of Fort Worth had been elevated from vice chair to chair of the caucus, confirmed what two sources had told The Texas Tribune earlier Friday.
Bonnen said in a statement that Burrows, who has served in the House since 2015, "was a strong leader for the caucus." Bonnen added: "I respect his decision and I remain committed to strengthening our majority."
Key terms:
Texas House GOP Caucus
House Speaker
primaries
House Republicans
Empower Texans
Texas Rangers
House General Investigating Committee
Texas Democrats
- Click here for it.
State Rep. Dustin Burrows of Lubbock has resigned as chair of the Texas House GOP Caucus amid allegations that he and House Speaker Dennis Bonnen planned to politically target members from their own party in the 2020 primaries.
Burrows' departure marks the largest fallout yet since the accusations surfaced.
On Friday, the caucus executive committee sent an email to members saying that it had "met and accepted" Burrows' resignation as caucus chair. The email, which also announced that state Rep. Stephanie Klick of Fort Worth had been elevated from vice chair to chair of the caucus, confirmed what two sources had told The Texas Tribune earlier Friday.
Bonnen said in a statement that Burrows, who has served in the House since 2015, "was a strong leader for the caucus." Bonnen added: "I respect his decision and I remain committed to strengthening our majority."
Key terms:
Texas House GOP Caucus
House Speaker
primaries
House Republicans
Empower Texans
Texas Rangers
House General Investigating Committee
Texas Democrats
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)