Friday, April 30, 2021
Some recent UT/ TT polls - 4/30/21
- February’s storm and outages united voters wanting state action, UT/TT Poll finds.
Texas voters overwhelmingly support requiring energy providers to protect their facilities from bad weather, and a slim majority thinks the government should pay for that weatherization, according to the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.
Having lived through a statewide winter freeze and electricity outages in February, 84% of Texas voters said those facilities should be weatherized, and 52% said government funds should pay for it.
- Texas voters sharply divided on the fairness of elections and what to do about it, poll finds.
Asking whether the state’s election system discriminates against people of color depends on whether you are talking to Hispanic voters, who are split, Black voters, a majority of whom say it is discriminatory, and white voters, most of whom say it isn’t, according to the new University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.
Overall, 52% of Texas voters said the system doesn’t discriminate. But the question is divisive: 73% of Democrats said it does and 88% of Republicans said it doesn’t. Among white voters, 62% said the system doesn’t discriminate, but 58% of Black voters said it does. Hispanic voters were divided, with 43% saying it does discriminate and 42% saying it doesn’t.
The findings are echoed in the halls of the Texas Legislature, where lawmakers are wrestling with proposed restrictions to the state’s voting laws after a tumultuous election year spurred unsubstantiated questions about voter fraud and the integrity of the process.
- Texans remain concerned about pandemic, but they’re returning to normal, UT/TT Poll finds.
Texas voters are feeling safer about being out in public, and better about getting COVID-19 vaccines, but a majority of the state’s voters still consider the coronavirus a “significant crisis,” according to a new University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.
In the first UT/TT Poll of the pandemic, conducted a year ago, 63% of Texans said they were “only leaving my residence when I absolutely have to.” That has fallen to 21%; in the current poll, 33% said they were “living normally, coming and going as usual,” and another 44% said they are still leaving home, “but being careful when I do.” The majority of Democrats, 55%, were in that last group, while 55% of Republicans said they are living normally.
Texas voters overwhelmingly support requiring energy providers to protect their facilities from bad weather, and a slim majority thinks the government should pay for that weatherization, according to the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.
Having lived through a statewide winter freeze and electricity outages in February, 84% of Texas voters said those facilities should be weatherized, and 52% said government funds should pay for it.
- Texas voters sharply divided on the fairness of elections and what to do about it, poll finds.
Asking whether the state’s election system discriminates against people of color depends on whether you are talking to Hispanic voters, who are split, Black voters, a majority of whom say it is discriminatory, and white voters, most of whom say it isn’t, according to the new University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.
Overall, 52% of Texas voters said the system doesn’t discriminate. But the question is divisive: 73% of Democrats said it does and 88% of Republicans said it doesn’t. Among white voters, 62% said the system doesn’t discriminate, but 58% of Black voters said it does. Hispanic voters were divided, with 43% saying it does discriminate and 42% saying it doesn’t.
The findings are echoed in the halls of the Texas Legislature, where lawmakers are wrestling with proposed restrictions to the state’s voting laws after a tumultuous election year spurred unsubstantiated questions about voter fraud and the integrity of the process.
- Texans remain concerned about pandemic, but they’re returning to normal, UT/TT Poll finds.
Texas voters are feeling safer about being out in public, and better about getting COVID-19 vaccines, but a majority of the state’s voters still consider the coronavirus a “significant crisis,” according to a new University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.
In the first UT/TT Poll of the pandemic, conducted a year ago, 63% of Texans said they were “only leaving my residence when I absolutely have to.” That has fallen to 21%; in the current poll, 33% said they were “living normally, coming and going as usual,” and another 44% said they are still leaving home, “but being careful when I do.” The majority of Democrats, 55%, were in that last group, while 55% of Republicans said they are living normally.
From 538: Biden’s Betting On Public Support To Push His Agenda. Polls Show His Big Spending Packages Have It.
For our look at the relationship between public opinion and public policy:
- Click here for the article.
In his address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night, President Biden spent a lot of time extolling the virtues of the three massive spending packages that have quickly become centerpieces of his agenda: the $1.9 trillion coronavirus stimulus package, a $2 trillion infrastructure bill and a $1.8 trillion plan for child care, universal prekindergarten and more.
But what about the other two plans, which have yet to make it through Congress?
The American Jobs Plan, a $2 trillion bill to improve infrastructure, is also popular, but recent polls disagree on how much. According to Fox News, which was in the field April 18-21, the plan is fairly divisive: Although a plurality (49 percent) of respondents support it, almost as many (41 percent) oppose it. However, it received higher support in other polls, such as CBS News/YouGov on April 21-24 (58 percent support, 42 percent opposition) and ABC News/Washington Post (52 percent support, 35 percent opposition). Monmouth University’s April 8-12 survey, which detailed that the proposal would spend money on “roads, bridges and trains, internet access, power grid improvements, and clean energy projects,” gave the proposal its gaudiest numbers. A full 68 percent of adults said they supported the plan, while only 29 percent opposed it.
CBS News/YouGov also asked about specific infrastructure improvements, and notably, each was more popular than the full bill (which the poll identified merely as “the Biden Administration’s infrastructure proposal”). By a whopping 87 percent to 13 percent, Americans supported a hypothetical bill to spend money building or repairing roads and bridges; they also gave the thumbs-up to a bill to repair or replace old water pipes, 85 percent to 15 percent. Even the least popular specific proposals rated as more popular than the overall bill. For instance, Americans support spending money to build more train and rail lines “only” 63 percent to 37 percent, and they support setting up electric car charging stations “just” 61 percent to 39 percent.
From 538: What Went Down During President Biden’s Speech To Congress
Presidential speeches before joint sessions of Congress are often used to highlight areas of public policy the president wants to promote. Here's a rundown of what went down a couple days ago:
- Click here for the article.
- Click here for the article.
Social policy timeline
Is American culture antithetical to generous social policy?
- John Calvin
- predestination
- individualism / traditionalism
- Social Darwinism
The English Poor Laws
- The Victorian Poor Law and Life in the Workhouse.
- Poor Relief in the Early America.
U.S. Constitution
- delegated powers
- - commerce
- - security
- reserved powers
- - police powers
- - - health
- - - welfare
- - - safety
- - - morals
- implied powers
Labor policies
- indentured servitude
- slavery
- Department of Labor
- Wagner Act
Education policy
- military academies
- land grant universities
- Department of HEW - 1953
- - First Secretary - Texan Oveta Culp Hobby
Health policy
Focusing events
- Civil War
- - pensions
- Westward migration
- Great Depression
- - Social Security
Movements
- Progressives Movement
- - child policy - labor / schools / childhood
- - pure food and drugs
- - professionalism
- - labor policy / unionism / minimum wages / maximum work weeks / overtime
- - women's suffrage
- - racial equality
- - political reforms / party machines /
- - rural development
New Federalism
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
For our look at Economic Policymaking
- The Policy Making Process.
- The Issue Attention Cycle.
British Colonies
- The Virginia Company.
- Mercantilism.
- Protectionism
Restrictions on American Manufacturing
- The Fur Trade.
- Ship Building
- Subsistence Farming
- Settlements
- cheap labor
French and Indian Wars
- debt
Revolutionary War
- debt
Taxation
Independence
- confederation v federal system
U.S. Constitution
- commercial and defense policy
Banking
Enhance Trade
Communications and Transportation
- infrastructure
- clear rivers
- build roads
- contain Native Americans
Westward Expansion
- Royal Proclamation Line
- Lewis and Clark
- Mississippi River
- Gulf Coast
- Pacific Coast
- International Outreach
- Land Grant Universities
Populating the West
- Land Speculation
- Development
- Cities
- Emigration
Patents
- seeds
- telegram
- railroads
The Army Signal Corps
The Rise of Factories
Regulations
- ICC
- FDA
- Federal Reserve
Economic Cycles
- Panics
- 1907
- Great Depression
Keynesianism
- fiscal policy
- monetary policy
Post WW2
- Bretton Woods
- WTO
- IMF
- World Bank
Increased International Trade
- exporting factories
The Rise of the Service Sector
- what is a service?
- consumer economy
- the flow of currency
- credit based economy
Does the Debt matter anymore?
Post Scarcity Economy?
From the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis: Does the National Debt Matter?
This idea has been developing for a while.
- Click here for the study.
In the second quarter of 2008, U.S. federal debt held by the public totaled about $5.3 trillion, or 35% of gross domestic product (GDP). This figure grew to $20.5 trillion—or 105% of GDP—by the second quarter of 2020. To put it another way, the national debt has increased 400% in 12 years, while over the same period, national income has grown by only 30%.
Most people have a very personal view of the nature of debt. We know that high levels of debt and deficit spending at the household level are not sustainable. At some point, household debt has to be paid back. If a household is unable to do so, its debt will have to be renegotiated. It is natural to think that the same must hold true for governments. But this “government as a household” analogy is imperfect, at best. The analogy breaks down for several reasons.
Debt Issuance
While a household has a finite lifespan, a government has an indefinite planning horizon. So, while a household must eventually retire its debt, a government can, in principle, refinance (or roll over) its debt indefinitely.
Yes, debt has to be repaid when it comes due. But maturing debt can be replaced with newly issued debt. Rolling over the debt in this manner means that it need never be “paid back.” Indeed, it may even grow over time in line with the scale of the economy’s operations as measured by population or GDP.
Unlike personal debt, the national debt consists mainly of marketable securities issued by the U.S. Treasury as bonds. It is of some interest to note that the Treasury Department issued some of its securities in the form of small-denomination bills, called United States Notes, from 1862-1971 that are largely indistinguishable from the currency issued by the Federal Reserve today.
Today, U.S. Treasury securities exist primarily as electronic ledger entries.2 These securities are used extensively in financial markets as a form of wholesale money. The cash management division of a large corporation, for example, may prefer to hold Treasury securities instead of bank deposits because the latter are insured only up to $250,000.
If cash is needed to meet an obligation, the security can either be sold or used as collateral in a short-term loan called a “sale and repurchase agreement,” or repo, for short. Because investors value the liquidity of Treasury securities, they trade at a premium relative to other securities. So, investors are willing to carry Treasury securities at relatively low yields, the same way we are willing to carry insured bank deposits at very low interest rates, or the same way we are willing to carry securities that bear zero interest like the ones displayed above.
Ultimately, the federal government has control over the supply of the nation’s legal tender. Both of the notes above have been legal tender since the gold recall of 1933. Now, consider the fact that the national debt consists of U.S. Treasury securities payable in legal tender. That is, imagine the national debt consisting of interest-bearing versions of the U.S. Note shown above.
When the interest comes due, it can be paid in legal tender—that is, by printing additional U.S. or Federal Reserve Notes. It follows that a technical default can only occur if the government permits it. The situation here is similar to that of a corporation financing itself with debt convertible to equity at the issuer’s discretion. Involuntary default is essentially impossible.3 This aspect of U.S. Treasury securities renders them highly desirable for investors seeking safety—a property which again serves to drive down their yields relative to other securities
Tuesday, April 27, 2021
From the Census Bureau: 2020 Census Apportionment Counts Press Kit
Texas gets two more seats.
It's up to the legislature to figure out where they go, and what the districts will look like.
- Click here for it
From the National League of Cities: City Rights in an Era of Preemption: A State-by-State Analysis
A report from an interest group highlighting an issue of concern.
". . we are continuing to observe aggressive moves by state legislatures nationwide to usurp local authority. Ultimately, people who live in cities want control over their own destinies. But when states seek blanket policies that run counter to the values of its cities, local leaders do not stand down.
State-level politicians are actively working to overturn the will of people in cities—both through preemption and Dillon’s Rule provisions. As a result, the work of city leaders and the mandate of the people is undermined. Taking stock of the last year, it is abundantly clear that the overall uptick in preemption laws and the general antagonism toward local control by disconnected state lawmakers must stop."
- Click here for the study.
It offers the following definition of preemption:
"Preemption is the use of state law to nullify
a municipal ordinance or authority. State
preemption can span many policy areas including
environmental regulation, firearm use and labor
laws. States can preempt cities from legislating
on particular issues either by statutory or
constitutional law. In some cases, court rulings
have forced cities to roll back ordinances already
in place."
It focuses on the following areas:
- Minimum Wage
- Paid Leave
- Anti-Discrimination
- Ride Sharing
- Home Sharing
- Municipal Broadband
- Tax and Expenditure
Limitations
It highlight Texas' attention to
- Minimum Wage
- Ride Sharing
- Tax and Expenditure Limitations
From the Texas Tribune: As Austin voters weigh camping ban proposition, Texas lawmakers consider bills to prohibit homeless encampments statewide
The relevant legislation is House Bill 1925, and Senate Bill 987.
Another example of state preemption of local government.
- Click here for the article.
The Texas Legislature is considering bills that would ban homeless encampments statewide, almost two years after the city of Austin decided to lift a similar local ban — a move that critics say triggered the proliferation of tent cities throughout Austin.
If lawmakers approve the legislation and Gov. Greg Abbott signs it into law, it would become the latest instance of the Republican-led state government overruling local ordinances. State lawmakers also are trying to stop cities from decreasing police funding after the “defund the police” movement sparked by last year’s national protests against police brutality.
“We've seen a huge increase in not only the number of homeless living under bridges or on the streets, but also the rise in crime,” said state Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Southlake, the author of House Bill 1925. “And really the difference has been that, at least in this case, this city has overturned their own ban.”
Austin’s City Council decided to lift the ban on public encampments in certain areas in July 2019, arguing that the policy had led to citations for people experiencing homelessness and hurting their ability to find housing. The move was quickly criticized by Abbott, who promised to take action against Austin and in his budget priority list asked the Legislature to withhold state grant money from cities that don’t ban such encampments.
The proposed bills — HB 1925 and its companion, Senate Bill 987 — would make camping in an unapproved public place a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $500.
Some useful, related terms:
- Homeless Policy
- Preemption
- Criminal Justice Policy
- Class C Misdemeanors
I'll add some on each
Another example of state preemption of local government.
- Click here for the article.
The Texas Legislature is considering bills that would ban homeless encampments statewide, almost two years after the city of Austin decided to lift a similar local ban — a move that critics say triggered the proliferation of tent cities throughout Austin.
If lawmakers approve the legislation and Gov. Greg Abbott signs it into law, it would become the latest instance of the Republican-led state government overruling local ordinances. State lawmakers also are trying to stop cities from decreasing police funding after the “defund the police” movement sparked by last year’s national protests against police brutality.
“We've seen a huge increase in not only the number of homeless living under bridges or on the streets, but also the rise in crime,” said state Rep. Giovanni Capriglione, R-Southlake, the author of House Bill 1925. “And really the difference has been that, at least in this case, this city has overturned their own ban.”
Austin’s City Council decided to lift the ban on public encampments in certain areas in July 2019, arguing that the policy had led to citations for people experiencing homelessness and hurting their ability to find housing. The move was quickly criticized by Abbott, who promised to take action against Austin and in his budget priority list asked the Legislature to withhold state grant money from cities that don’t ban such encampments.
The proposed bills — HB 1925 and its companion, Senate Bill 987 — would make camping in an unapproved public place a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $500.
Some useful, related terms:
- Homeless Policy
- Preemption
- Criminal Justice Policy
- Class C Misdemeanors
I'll add some on each
Monday, April 26, 2021
For our look at Racial Civil Rights Policy Making
- The Policy Making Process.
- The Issue Attention Cycle.
- John Punch.
- Bacon's Rebellion.
- Slave Law in Colonial Virginia.
- Slavery in the U.S. Constitution.
- The Missouri Compromise.
- Freedom Suits.
- Dred Scott v Sanford.
- 13th Amendment.
- Equal Protection Clause.
- 15th Amendment.
- Black Codes.
- Reconstruction.
- Jim Crow.
- The One Drop Rule.
- Plessy v Ferguson.
- Separate but Equal.
- Brown v Board of Education.
- Affirmative Action.
- Racial Profiling.
Wednesday, April 21, 2021
From Texans for Responsible Marijuana Policy: Tracking: Texas Marijuana Policy | 87th Legislative Session
The specific bills mentioned in one of the articles below.
Penalty Reduction for Possession
HB 99 by Rep. Steve Toth (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the possession of two ounces or less of marihuana; authorizing a fee.
HB 169 by Rep. Senfronia Thompson (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the criminal penalties for the possession of small amounts of Penalty Group 1 controlled substances and marihuana.
HB 439 by Rep. Terry Canales (Penalty Reduction – Concentrates)
Relating to the criminal penalties for possession or delivery of marihuana and marihuana concentrate.
HB 441 by Rep. Erin Zwiener (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the criminal and licensing consequences of certain marihuana possession and drug paraphernalia possession offenses; imposing a fee.
SB 151 by Sen. Nathan Johnson (Penalty Reduction – Concentrates)
Relating to the criminal penalties for possession or delivery of marihuana and marihuana concentrate.
HB 498 by Rep. Gene Wu (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the prosecution of and penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marihuana.
HB 585 by Rep. Sheryl Cole (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the prosecution of and penalties for possession of marihuana.
HB 616 by Rep. Harold Dutton (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the criminal penalties for possession of two grams or less of marihuana.
SCR 1 by Sen. Nathan Johnson (No DL Suspension for MJ)
Expressing opposition to the enactment or enforcement in Texas of a law, under a federal mandate, that automatically suspends the driver’s license of an individual who is convicted of certain offenses.
HB 1086 by Rep. Joe Moody (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the criminal penalties for certain criminal offenses.
HB 1609 by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the criminal penalties for possession of marihuana.
SB 652 by Sen. Sarah Eckhardt (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the criminal penalties for delivery and possession of marihuana and citations given for those offenses.
HB 1954 by Rep. Harold Dutton (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the penalty for certain offenders for possession of a small amount of certain controlled substances.
HB 2593 by Rep. Joe Moody (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the criminal penalties for the possession of certain tetrahydrocannabinols under the Texas Controlled Substances Act.
HB 2568 by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the manufacture, delivery, and possession of certain tetrahydrocannabinols under the Texas Controlled Substances Act.
HB 3169 by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the substances listed in Penalty Group 2 under the Texas Controlled Substances Act.
HB 3170 by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the mandatory placement on deferred adjudication community supervision of certain defendants charged with possession of certain substances listed in Penalty Group 2 under the Texas Controlled Substances Act.
SB 1175 by Sen. Nathan Johnson
(Penalty Reduction – Flower and Concentrates)
Relating to the criminal and licensing consequences of certain criminal offenses involving the possession or delivery of marihuana and cannabis concentrate or possession of drug paraphernalia; imposing a fee; authorizing a fine.
HB 3772 by Rep. James White
(Penalty Reduction – Flower and Concentrates)
Relating to the criminal and licensing consequences of certain criminal offenses involving the possession or delivery of marihuana and cannabis concentrate or possession of drug paraphernalia; imposing a fee; authorizing a fine.
Medical Cannabis
SB 90 by Sen. José Menéndez (Medical Cannabis)
Relating to authorizing the possession, use, cultivation, distribution, transportation, and delivery of medical cannabis for medical use by qualifying patients with certain debilitating medical conditions and the licensing of dispensing organizations and testing facilities; authorizing fees.
HB 43 by Rep. Alex Dominguez (Medical Cannabis)
Relating to authorizing the possession, use, cultivation, distribution, transportation, and delivery of medical cannabis for medical use by patients with certain eligible medical conditions and the licensing of dispensing organizations; changing a fee.
HB 94 by Rep. Ron Reynolds (Medical Cannabis)
Relating to authorizing the possession, use, cultivation, distribution, transportation, and delivery of medical cannabis for medical use by qualifying patients with certain debilitating medical conditions and the licensing of dispensing organizations and testing facilities; authorizing fees.
HB 567 by Rep. James Frank (Securing Parental Rights for Patients)
Relating to the procedures and grounds for terminating the parent-child relationship, for taking possession of a child, and for certain hearings in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship involving the Department of Family and Protective Services.
SB 190 by Sen. Bryan Hughes (Securing Parental Rights for Patients)
Relating to the procedures and grounds for terminating the parent-child relationship, for taking possession of a child, and for certain hearings in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship involving the Department of Family and Protective Services.
HB 809 by Rep. Julie Johnson (Medical Cannabis for PTSD)
Relating to authorizing the possession, use, cultivation, distribution, transportation, and delivery of medical cannabis for medical use by patients with post-traumatic stress disorder and the licensing of medical cannabis dispensing organizations; authorizing fees.
SB 250 by Sen. Carol Alvarado (Medical Cannabis)
Relating to authorizing the possession, use, cultivation, distribution, transportation, and delivery of medical cannabis for medical use by patients for whom a physician determines medical use is the best available treatment for the patient’s medical condition or symptoms and the licensing of medical cannabis dispensing organizations; authorizing fees.
HB 1001 by Rep. Eddie Lucio III (Low-THC Cannabis for PTSD)
Relating to the medical use of low-THC cannabis by certain patients with post-traumatic stress disorder under the Texas Compassionate Use Act.
SB 327 by Sen. Eddie Lucio II (Low-THC Cannabis for PTSD)
Relating to the medical use of low-THC cannabis by certain patients with post-traumatic stress disorder under the Texas Compassionate Use Act.
HB 1109 by Rep. Alex Dominguez (Medical Cannabis for PTSD)
Relating to the use of medical cannabis by veterans for post-traumatic stress disorder and the licensing of associated cultivating or dispensing organizations; authorizing fees.
HB 1233 by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (Medical Cannabis)
Relating to prescribing low-THC cannabis under the Texas Compassionate Use Program.
HB 1982 by Rep. Leo Pacheco (Medical Cannabis)
Relating to the prescription and dispensing of medical cannabis; requiring an occupational license; authorizing a fee.
HB 2932 by Rep. Harold Dutton (Securing Parental Rights for Patients)
Relating to certain procedures in suits affecting the parent-child relationship filed by the Department of Family and Protective Services.
HB 1535 by Rep. Stephanie Klick (Expanded Low-THC Access)
Relating to the medical use of low-THC cannabis by patients with certain medical conditions and the establishment of compassionate-use institutional review boards to evaluate and approve proposed research programs to study the medical use of low-THC cannabis in the treatment of certain patients.
HB 3137 by Rep. Lyle Larson (Medical Cannabis Research)
Relating to a medical cannabis research program.
SB 1440 by Sen. Donna Campbell (Low-THC Cannabis for PTSD)
Relating to the medical use of low-THC cannabis by veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder under the Texas Compassionate Use Act.
HB 4307 by Rep. Eddie Lucio III
(Cannabis Insurance Coverage for State Employees)
Relating to coverage for low-THC cannabis under certain group benefit plans for governmental employees.
SB 2040 by Sen. José Menéndez (Medical Cannabis)
Relating to authorizing the possession, use, cultivation, distribution, delivery, sale, and research of medical cannabis for medical use by patients with certain medical conditions and the licensing of medical cannabis organizations; authorizing fees.
Legalization for Adult Use
HB 447 by Rep. Joe Moody (Legalization)
Relating to the regulation of the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, sale, testing, possession, and use of cannabis and cannabis products; authorizing the imposition of taxes and fees; requiring an occupational license; creating a criminal offense.
SB 140 by Sen. Roland Gutierrez (Legalization)
Relating to the regulation of the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, sale, testing, possession, and use of cannabis and cannabis products; authorizing the imposition of taxes and fees; requiring an occupational license; creating a criminal offense; to border security enhancement projects and the creation of a fund to pay for those projects; to authorizing the possession, use, cultivation, distribution, transportation, and delivery of medical cannabis and the licensing of medical cannabis dispensing organizations.
SB 269 by Sen. Royce West (Legalization)
Relating to the regulation of the cultivation, manufacture, processing, distribution, sale, testing, transportation, delivery, transfer, possession, and use of cannabis and cannabis products and the allocation of tax revenue derived from cannabis and cannabis products; authorizing the imposition of fees; requiring an occupational license; creating a criminal offense.
HB 3248 by Rep. Jessica González (Legalization)
Relating to the regulation of the cultivation, manufacture, processing, distribution, sale, testing, transportation, delivery, transfer, possession, use, and taxation of cannabis and cannabis products and local regulation of cannabis establishments; authorizing the imposition of fees; requiring an occupational license; creating a criminal offense; imposing a tax.
SB 1345 by Sen. Sarah Eckhardt (Legalization)
Relating to the regulation of the cultivation, manufacture, processing, distribution, sale, testing, transportation, delivery, transfer, possession, and use of cannabis and cannabis products; authorizing the imposition of fees; requiring an occupational license; creating a criminal offense.
HB 4089 by Rep. James Talarico (Legalization)
Relating to the regulation of the cultivation, manufacture, processing, distribution, sale, testing, transportation, delivery, transfer, possession, use, and taxation of cannabis and cannabis products; authorizing the imposition of fees; requiring an occupational license; creating a criminal offense; imposing a tax.
Hemp
HB 307 by Rep. Nicole Collier (Affirmative Defense)
Relating to a defense to prosecution for the possession of certain consumable hemp products containing a controlled substance or marihuana.
HB 3948 by Rep. Tracy King (Hemp Regulations)
Relating to the production and regulation of hemp and consumable hemp products; providing administrative penalties; imposing and authorizing fees; creating a criminal offense.
SB 1778 by Sen. Charles Perry (Hemp Regulations)
Relating to the production and regulation of hemp and consumable hemp products; providing administrative penalties; imposing and authorizing fees; creating a criminal offense.
Constitutional Amendments
SJR 16 by Sen. Sarah Eckhardt
(Constitutional Amendment: Legalization)
Proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize and regulate the possession, cultivation, and sale of cannabis.
HJR 13 by Rep. Terry Canales (Constitutional Amendment: Legalization)
Proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize and regulate the possession, cultivation, and sale of cannabis.
HJR 28 by Rep. Lyle Larson
(Constitutional Amendment: Medical Cannabis)
Proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize and regulate the possession, cultivation, and sale of cannabis for medical use.
HJR 11 by Rep. Ron Reynolds
(Constitutional Amendment: Medical Cannabis)
Proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize and regulate the possession, cultivation, and sale of cannabis for medical use.
Miscellaneous
HB 413 by Rep. Ken King (Drug Test for Food Assistance)
Relating to the drug testing of certain persons seeking benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
HB 859 by Rep. Nicole Collier
(Expungement for Decriminalized Misdemeanor Offenses)
Relating to the expunction of all records and files related to arrests for certain decriminalized misdemeanor offenses.
HB 1108 by Rep. Alex Dominguez (Licensing Requirements)
Relating to the eligibility of an individual to be issued a license to operate as a dispensing organization under the Texas Compassionate-Use Act, or to act as a director, manager, or employee of a dispensing organization, based on a criminal history background check.
HB 1178 by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (Paraphernalia Decriminalization)
Relating to removing criminal penalties for the possession of drug paraphernalia under the Texas Controlled Substances Act.
HB 1694 by Rep. John Raney (Affirmative Defense)
Relating to a defense to prosecution for certain offenses involving possession of small amounts of controlled substances, marihuana, dangerous drugs, or abusable volatile chemicals, or possession of drug paraphernalia for defendants seeking assistance for a suspected overdose.
HB 1735 by Rep. Gene Wu
(No Enhancement Charges for MJ Possession)
Relating to criminal penalties for possession offenses under the Texas Controlled Substances Act.
SB 811 by Sen. Charles Schwertner (Affirmative Defense)
Relating to a defense to prosecution for certain offenses involving possession of small amounts of controlled substances, marihuana, dangerous drugs, or abusable volatile chemicals, or possession of drug paraphernalia for defendants seeking assistance for a suspected overdose.
SB 947 by Sen. Sarah Eckhardt (Affirmative Defense)
Relating to a defense to prosecution for certain offenses involving possession of a controlled substance, marihuana, a dangerous drug, an abusable volatile chemical, or drug paraphernalia for defendants seeking assistance for a suspected overdose.
HB 3149 by Rep. John Bucy (Drug Testing State Employees)
Relating to drug testing and prescription drug policies and certain legal protections for employees and independent contractors of state agencies and political subdivisions and for other persons regarding the medical use of low-THC cannabis and hemp.
HB 3174 by Rep. Ray Lopez (Employment)
Relating to certain peace officer hiring policies regarding applicants with a history of marihuana use.
HB 3425 by Rep. Shelby Slawson (Drug Testing for Food Assistance)
Relating to the drug testing of certain persons seeking benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
HB 4171 by Rep. Mayes Middleton (Drug Testing Legislators)
Relating to drug testing members of the legislature to establish or maintain eligibility for membership in the elected class of the Employees Retirement System of Texas.
Penalty Reduction for Possession
HB 99 by Rep. Steve Toth (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the possession of two ounces or less of marihuana; authorizing a fee.
HB 169 by Rep. Senfronia Thompson (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the criminal penalties for the possession of small amounts of Penalty Group 1 controlled substances and marihuana.
HB 439 by Rep. Terry Canales (Penalty Reduction – Concentrates)
Relating to the criminal penalties for possession or delivery of marihuana and marihuana concentrate.
HB 441 by Rep. Erin Zwiener (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the criminal and licensing consequences of certain marihuana possession and drug paraphernalia possession offenses; imposing a fee.
SB 151 by Sen. Nathan Johnson (Penalty Reduction – Concentrates)
Relating to the criminal penalties for possession or delivery of marihuana and marihuana concentrate.
HB 498 by Rep. Gene Wu (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the prosecution of and penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marihuana.
HB 585 by Rep. Sheryl Cole (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the prosecution of and penalties for possession of marihuana.
HB 616 by Rep. Harold Dutton (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the criminal penalties for possession of two grams or less of marihuana.
SCR 1 by Sen. Nathan Johnson (No DL Suspension for MJ)
Expressing opposition to the enactment or enforcement in Texas of a law, under a federal mandate, that automatically suspends the driver’s license of an individual who is convicted of certain offenses.
HB 1086 by Rep. Joe Moody (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the criminal penalties for certain criminal offenses.
HB 1609 by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the criminal penalties for possession of marihuana.
SB 652 by Sen. Sarah Eckhardt (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the criminal penalties for delivery and possession of marihuana and citations given for those offenses.
HB 1954 by Rep. Harold Dutton (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the penalty for certain offenders for possession of a small amount of certain controlled substances.
HB 2593 by Rep. Joe Moody (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the criminal penalties for the possession of certain tetrahydrocannabinols under the Texas Controlled Substances Act.
HB 2568 by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the manufacture, delivery, and possession of certain tetrahydrocannabinols under the Texas Controlled Substances Act.
HB 3169 by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the substances listed in Penalty Group 2 under the Texas Controlled Substances Act.
HB 3170 by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (Penalty Reduction)
Relating to the mandatory placement on deferred adjudication community supervision of certain defendants charged with possession of certain substances listed in Penalty Group 2 under the Texas Controlled Substances Act.
SB 1175 by Sen. Nathan Johnson
(Penalty Reduction – Flower and Concentrates)
Relating to the criminal and licensing consequences of certain criminal offenses involving the possession or delivery of marihuana and cannabis concentrate or possession of drug paraphernalia; imposing a fee; authorizing a fine.
HB 3772 by Rep. James White
(Penalty Reduction – Flower and Concentrates)
Relating to the criminal and licensing consequences of certain criminal offenses involving the possession or delivery of marihuana and cannabis concentrate or possession of drug paraphernalia; imposing a fee; authorizing a fine.
Medical Cannabis
SB 90 by Sen. José Menéndez (Medical Cannabis)
Relating to authorizing the possession, use, cultivation, distribution, transportation, and delivery of medical cannabis for medical use by qualifying patients with certain debilitating medical conditions and the licensing of dispensing organizations and testing facilities; authorizing fees.
HB 43 by Rep. Alex Dominguez (Medical Cannabis)
Relating to authorizing the possession, use, cultivation, distribution, transportation, and delivery of medical cannabis for medical use by patients with certain eligible medical conditions and the licensing of dispensing organizations; changing a fee.
HB 94 by Rep. Ron Reynolds (Medical Cannabis)
Relating to authorizing the possession, use, cultivation, distribution, transportation, and delivery of medical cannabis for medical use by qualifying patients with certain debilitating medical conditions and the licensing of dispensing organizations and testing facilities; authorizing fees.
HB 567 by Rep. James Frank (Securing Parental Rights for Patients)
Relating to the procedures and grounds for terminating the parent-child relationship, for taking possession of a child, and for certain hearings in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship involving the Department of Family and Protective Services.
SB 190 by Sen. Bryan Hughes (Securing Parental Rights for Patients)
Relating to the procedures and grounds for terminating the parent-child relationship, for taking possession of a child, and for certain hearings in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship involving the Department of Family and Protective Services.
HB 809 by Rep. Julie Johnson (Medical Cannabis for PTSD)
Relating to authorizing the possession, use, cultivation, distribution, transportation, and delivery of medical cannabis for medical use by patients with post-traumatic stress disorder and the licensing of medical cannabis dispensing organizations; authorizing fees.
SB 250 by Sen. Carol Alvarado (Medical Cannabis)
Relating to authorizing the possession, use, cultivation, distribution, transportation, and delivery of medical cannabis for medical use by patients for whom a physician determines medical use is the best available treatment for the patient’s medical condition or symptoms and the licensing of medical cannabis dispensing organizations; authorizing fees.
HB 1001 by Rep. Eddie Lucio III (Low-THC Cannabis for PTSD)
Relating to the medical use of low-THC cannabis by certain patients with post-traumatic stress disorder under the Texas Compassionate Use Act.
SB 327 by Sen. Eddie Lucio II (Low-THC Cannabis for PTSD)
Relating to the medical use of low-THC cannabis by certain patients with post-traumatic stress disorder under the Texas Compassionate Use Act.
HB 1109 by Rep. Alex Dominguez (Medical Cannabis for PTSD)
Relating to the use of medical cannabis by veterans for post-traumatic stress disorder and the licensing of associated cultivating or dispensing organizations; authorizing fees.
HB 1233 by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (Medical Cannabis)
Relating to prescribing low-THC cannabis under the Texas Compassionate Use Program.
HB 1982 by Rep. Leo Pacheco (Medical Cannabis)
Relating to the prescription and dispensing of medical cannabis; requiring an occupational license; authorizing a fee.
HB 2932 by Rep. Harold Dutton (Securing Parental Rights for Patients)
Relating to certain procedures in suits affecting the parent-child relationship filed by the Department of Family and Protective Services.
HB 1535 by Rep. Stephanie Klick (Expanded Low-THC Access)
Relating to the medical use of low-THC cannabis by patients with certain medical conditions and the establishment of compassionate-use institutional review boards to evaluate and approve proposed research programs to study the medical use of low-THC cannabis in the treatment of certain patients.
HB 3137 by Rep. Lyle Larson (Medical Cannabis Research)
Relating to a medical cannabis research program.
SB 1440 by Sen. Donna Campbell (Low-THC Cannabis for PTSD)
Relating to the medical use of low-THC cannabis by veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder under the Texas Compassionate Use Act.
HB 4307 by Rep. Eddie Lucio III
(Cannabis Insurance Coverage for State Employees)
Relating to coverage for low-THC cannabis under certain group benefit plans for governmental employees.
SB 2040 by Sen. José Menéndez (Medical Cannabis)
Relating to authorizing the possession, use, cultivation, distribution, delivery, sale, and research of medical cannabis for medical use by patients with certain medical conditions and the licensing of medical cannabis organizations; authorizing fees.
Legalization for Adult Use
HB 447 by Rep. Joe Moody (Legalization)
Relating to the regulation of the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, sale, testing, possession, and use of cannabis and cannabis products; authorizing the imposition of taxes and fees; requiring an occupational license; creating a criminal offense.
SB 140 by Sen. Roland Gutierrez (Legalization)
Relating to the regulation of the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, sale, testing, possession, and use of cannabis and cannabis products; authorizing the imposition of taxes and fees; requiring an occupational license; creating a criminal offense; to border security enhancement projects and the creation of a fund to pay for those projects; to authorizing the possession, use, cultivation, distribution, transportation, and delivery of medical cannabis and the licensing of medical cannabis dispensing organizations.
SB 269 by Sen. Royce West (Legalization)
Relating to the regulation of the cultivation, manufacture, processing, distribution, sale, testing, transportation, delivery, transfer, possession, and use of cannabis and cannabis products and the allocation of tax revenue derived from cannabis and cannabis products; authorizing the imposition of fees; requiring an occupational license; creating a criminal offense.
HB 3248 by Rep. Jessica González (Legalization)
Relating to the regulation of the cultivation, manufacture, processing, distribution, sale, testing, transportation, delivery, transfer, possession, use, and taxation of cannabis and cannabis products and local regulation of cannabis establishments; authorizing the imposition of fees; requiring an occupational license; creating a criminal offense; imposing a tax.
SB 1345 by Sen. Sarah Eckhardt (Legalization)
Relating to the regulation of the cultivation, manufacture, processing, distribution, sale, testing, transportation, delivery, transfer, possession, and use of cannabis and cannabis products; authorizing the imposition of fees; requiring an occupational license; creating a criminal offense.
HB 4089 by Rep. James Talarico (Legalization)
Relating to the regulation of the cultivation, manufacture, processing, distribution, sale, testing, transportation, delivery, transfer, possession, use, and taxation of cannabis and cannabis products; authorizing the imposition of fees; requiring an occupational license; creating a criminal offense; imposing a tax.
Hemp
HB 307 by Rep. Nicole Collier (Affirmative Defense)
Relating to a defense to prosecution for the possession of certain consumable hemp products containing a controlled substance or marihuana.
HB 3948 by Rep. Tracy King (Hemp Regulations)
Relating to the production and regulation of hemp and consumable hemp products; providing administrative penalties; imposing and authorizing fees; creating a criminal offense.
SB 1778 by Sen. Charles Perry (Hemp Regulations)
Relating to the production and regulation of hemp and consumable hemp products; providing administrative penalties; imposing and authorizing fees; creating a criminal offense.
Constitutional Amendments
SJR 16 by Sen. Sarah Eckhardt
(Constitutional Amendment: Legalization)
Proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize and regulate the possession, cultivation, and sale of cannabis.
HJR 13 by Rep. Terry Canales (Constitutional Amendment: Legalization)
Proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize and regulate the possession, cultivation, and sale of cannabis.
HJR 28 by Rep. Lyle Larson
(Constitutional Amendment: Medical Cannabis)
Proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize and regulate the possession, cultivation, and sale of cannabis for medical use.
HJR 11 by Rep. Ron Reynolds
(Constitutional Amendment: Medical Cannabis)
Proposing a constitutional amendment to authorize and regulate the possession, cultivation, and sale of cannabis for medical use.
Miscellaneous
HB 413 by Rep. Ken King (Drug Test for Food Assistance)
Relating to the drug testing of certain persons seeking benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
HB 859 by Rep. Nicole Collier
(Expungement for Decriminalized Misdemeanor Offenses)
Relating to the expunction of all records and files related to arrests for certain decriminalized misdemeanor offenses.
HB 1108 by Rep. Alex Dominguez (Licensing Requirements)
Relating to the eligibility of an individual to be issued a license to operate as a dispensing organization under the Texas Compassionate-Use Act, or to act as a director, manager, or employee of a dispensing organization, based on a criminal history background check.
HB 1178 by Rep. Jasmine Crockett (Paraphernalia Decriminalization)
Relating to removing criminal penalties for the possession of drug paraphernalia under the Texas Controlled Substances Act.
HB 1694 by Rep. John Raney (Affirmative Defense)
Relating to a defense to prosecution for certain offenses involving possession of small amounts of controlled substances, marihuana, dangerous drugs, or abusable volatile chemicals, or possession of drug paraphernalia for defendants seeking assistance for a suspected overdose.
HB 1735 by Rep. Gene Wu
(No Enhancement Charges for MJ Possession)
Relating to criminal penalties for possession offenses under the Texas Controlled Substances Act.
SB 811 by Sen. Charles Schwertner (Affirmative Defense)
Relating to a defense to prosecution for certain offenses involving possession of small amounts of controlled substances, marihuana, dangerous drugs, or abusable volatile chemicals, or possession of drug paraphernalia for defendants seeking assistance for a suspected overdose.
SB 947 by Sen. Sarah Eckhardt (Affirmative Defense)
Relating to a defense to prosecution for certain offenses involving possession of a controlled substance, marihuana, a dangerous drug, an abusable volatile chemical, or drug paraphernalia for defendants seeking assistance for a suspected overdose.
HB 3149 by Rep. John Bucy (Drug Testing State Employees)
Relating to drug testing and prescription drug policies and certain legal protections for employees and independent contractors of state agencies and political subdivisions and for other persons regarding the medical use of low-THC cannabis and hemp.
HB 3174 by Rep. Ray Lopez (Employment)
Relating to certain peace officer hiring policies regarding applicants with a history of marihuana use.
HB 3425 by Rep. Shelby Slawson (Drug Testing for Food Assistance)
Relating to the drug testing of certain persons seeking benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
HB 4171 by Rep. Mayes Middleton (Drug Testing Legislators)
Relating to drug testing members of the legislature to establish or maintain eligibility for membership in the elected class of the Employees Retirement System of Texas.
Catching up on Marijuana Bills in the Texas Legislature
Commentary mostly, some from advocates
- Tracking: Texas Marijuana Policy | 87th Legislative Session.
- Texas’ Marijuana Efforts Blunted in the Legislature.
- Marijuana Legislation Progresses in…Texas?
- Texas' odds for marijuana law reform? Depends on who you ask.
- Will the 87th Texas Legislature Expand Access to Medicinal Marijuana?
- Tracking: Texas Marijuana Policy | 87th Legislative Session.
- Texas’ Marijuana Efforts Blunted in the Legislature.
- Marijuana Legislation Progresses in…Texas?
- Texas' odds for marijuana law reform? Depends on who you ask.
- Will the 87th Texas Legislature Expand Access to Medicinal Marijuana?
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
From Vox: Marijuana legalization has won
A current look at policy change. Bets are off whether Texas joins up soon.
- Click here for the article.
This 4/20, the US is nearing a tipping point of sorts on marijuana legalization: Almost half the country — about 43 percent of the population — now lives in a state where marijuana is legal to consume just for fun.
The past several months alone have seen a burst of activity as four states across the US legalized marijuana for recreational use: New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and, most recently, New Mexico.
It’s a massive shift that took place over just a few years. A decade ago, no states allowed marijuana for recreational use; the first states to legalize cannabis in 2012, Colorado and Washington, did so through voter-driven initiatives. Now, 17 states and Washington, DC, have legalized marijuana (although DC doesn’t yet allow sales), with five enacting their laws through legislatures, showing even typically cautious politicians are embracing the issue.
At this point, the question of nationwide marijuana legalization is likely more a matter of when, not if. At least two-thirds of the American public support the change, based on various public opinion surveys in recent years. Of the 15 states where marijuana legalization has been on the ballot since 2012, it was approved in 13 — including Republican-dominated Alaska, Montana, and South Dakota (although South Dakota’s measure is currently held up in the courts). In the 2020 election, the legalization initiative in swing state Arizona got nearly 300,000 more votes than either Joe Biden or Donald Trump.
Legalization has also created a big new industry in very populous states, including California and (soon) New York, and that industry is going to push to continue expanding. One of the US’s neighbors, Canada, has already legalized pot, and the other, Mexico, is likely to legalize it soon, creating an international market that would love to tap into US consumers.
The walls are closing in on this issue for legalization opponents — and quickly.
Many politicians have played it cautiously in response to these trends. While some high-profile Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, have come out in support, Biden continues to oppose legalization. Republicans, including Trump, are almost entirely opposed.
For info on public opinion:
- Support for marijuana legalization is at an all-time high in a new poll.
- Click here for the article.
This 4/20, the US is nearing a tipping point of sorts on marijuana legalization: Almost half the country — about 43 percent of the population — now lives in a state where marijuana is legal to consume just for fun.
The past several months alone have seen a burst of activity as four states across the US legalized marijuana for recreational use: New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and, most recently, New Mexico.
It’s a massive shift that took place over just a few years. A decade ago, no states allowed marijuana for recreational use; the first states to legalize cannabis in 2012, Colorado and Washington, did so through voter-driven initiatives. Now, 17 states and Washington, DC, have legalized marijuana (although DC doesn’t yet allow sales), with five enacting their laws through legislatures, showing even typically cautious politicians are embracing the issue.
At this point, the question of nationwide marijuana legalization is likely more a matter of when, not if. At least two-thirds of the American public support the change, based on various public opinion surveys in recent years. Of the 15 states where marijuana legalization has been on the ballot since 2012, it was approved in 13 — including Republican-dominated Alaska, Montana, and South Dakota (although South Dakota’s measure is currently held up in the courts). In the 2020 election, the legalization initiative in swing state Arizona got nearly 300,000 more votes than either Joe Biden or Donald Trump.
Legalization has also created a big new industry in very populous states, including California and (soon) New York, and that industry is going to push to continue expanding. One of the US’s neighbors, Canada, has already legalized pot, and the other, Mexico, is likely to legalize it soon, creating an international market that would love to tap into US consumers.
The walls are closing in on this issue for legalization opponents — and quickly.
Many politicians have played it cautiously in response to these trends. While some high-profile Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, have come out in support, Biden continues to oppose legalization. Republicans, including Trump, are almost entirely opposed.
For info on public opinion:
- Support for marijuana legalization is at an all-time high in a new poll.
From the LA Times: Death of George Floyd, trial of Derek Chauvin: Timeline of key events
For our look at criminal justice policy.
- click here for it.
Public Policy and the 87th Session of the Texas Legislature
For perusal today. Let's think about these in terms of the public policy process.
- Texas lawmakers advance bills blocking access to gender-affirming health care despite opposition from LGBTQ Texans, medical associations.
- Texas Legislature considering bill to make it harder to get public information about government employees.
- Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick says Senate currently lacks the votes to pass permitless carry of handguns.
- Texas House targets power grid flaw that cut electricity to natural gas facilities and worsened February blackouts.
- Despite natural gas failures during winter storm, Texas lawmakers target renewable energy in the aftermath.
- After stalling for years, effort to allow permitless carrying of handguns sees major breakthrough in Texas House.
From the Library of Congress: Pre-Civil War African-American Slavery
For out look at social movements broadly, and the civil rights movement specifically.
- Click here for it.
From the Library of Congress: Progressive Era to New Era, 1900-1929
Part of their series: U.S. History Primary Source Timeline.
- Click here for it.
For the entire timeline, click here.
Time Line of The Progressive Era From The Idea of America
Another timeline.
- Click here for it.
Think of these in terms of the public policy cycle. Try this one.
Monday, April 19, 2021
GOVT 2305 HCC - Key Terms
6 - Public Opinion and Political Socialization
public opinion
poll
sample
population
sampling error
direction
intensity
salience
political socialization
agents of socialization
primary: family, school, church
secondary: peers, media, leaders, events
political thought
filters
party identification
selective perception
partisanship
political ideology
liberal
conservative
economic ideology
cultural ideology
populist
libertarian
group orientation
religion
economic class
region
race and ethnicity
gender
generations and age
crosscutting groups
influence of public opinion on policy
delegate
trustee
politico
limits on the publics influence
oligarchy
plutocracy
manufactured consent
the boundaries of action
Chapter 5 - Equal Rights: Struggling toward Fairness
civil rights
equal rights
equality through law
14th Amendment
equal protection clause
segregation in schools
Brown v Board 1 and 2
de jure and de facto segregation
busing
Swann
judicial tests of equal protection
reasonable basis
strict scrutiny
suspect classification
Rostker v Goldberg
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Shelby v Holder
Civil Rights Act of 1968
housing
redlining
affirmative action
bakke
adarand
grutter
fischer v ut
struggle for equality
Black americans
partisanship
NAACP
Women
english common law
Seneca falls
15th and 19th amendments
FMLA
Hispanic americans
LULAC
MALDEF
growth
farm labor
undocumented labor
Native americans
manifest destiny
displacement
treaties
Bureau of Indian Affairs
AIM
Asian americans
Lau v Nichols
Others
Age
Disabilities
LGBTQ
Obergefell v Hodges
Chapter 15 - Economic and Environmental Policy
TARP
economy
laissez - faire economics
mixed economy
FDA
regulation
deregulation
new federalism
under regulation
economic efficiency
promoting competition
ICC
FTC
economic equity
FLSA
labor unions
progressive era
new deal
EPA
FCC
SEC
Dodd-Frank
externalities
silent spring
climate change
energy policy
NOAA
United Nations
promoting business
loans – tax breaks
NLRA
cooperative federalism
promoting agriculture
economic tool
fiscal policy
demand side economics
depression
recession
supply side economics
budget deficit
national debt
balanced budget
monetary policy
federal reserve system
controlling inflation
16 – Income, Welfare, and Education
income politics
income redistribution
progressive income tax
income tax brackets
GI Bill
tax policy and income inequality
capital gains tax
CBO
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
Wage Stagflation
manufacturing
service: banking, rental services, health care, entertainment, fast food, housekeeping
minimum wage
TPP
NAFTA
welfare policies
poverty line
public assistance programs
expanding federal role
cooperative federalism
WPA
ADC / AFDC / TANF
Social Security
Medicare / Medicaid
Welfare Reform Act of 1996
ACA of 2010
public assistance
eligibility
means test
in-kind benefit
social insurance
entitlement programs
AARP
EITC
Education policies
equality of opportunity
public education
leveling
federal role
grants in aid
War on Poverty
Higher Education Act 1965
partisan conflicts
economic security
Chapter 17 – Foreign Policy
TPP
NATO
CIA
NSA
WTOIMF
World Bank
isolationism
internationalist
bipolar
Cold War
containment
unipolar
multilateralism
war on terrorism
preemptive war doctrine
commander in chief
unilateralism
military policy
MAD
conventional and unconventional war
transnational terrorism
WND
Military industrial complex
foreign trade
economic globalization
tariffs
free trade
protectionism
america first
USMCA
hard power
soft power
public opinion
poll
sample
population
sampling error
direction
intensity
salience
political socialization
agents of socialization
primary: family, school, church
secondary: peers, media, leaders, events
political thought
filters
party identification
selective perception
partisanship
political ideology
liberal
conservative
economic ideology
cultural ideology
populist
libertarian
group orientation
religion
economic class
region
race and ethnicity
gender
generations and age
crosscutting groups
influence of public opinion on policy
delegate
trustee
politico
limits on the publics influence
oligarchy
plutocracy
manufactured consent
the boundaries of action
Chapter 5 - Equal Rights: Struggling toward Fairness
civil rights
equal rights
equality through law
14th Amendment
equal protection clause
segregation in schools
Brown v Board 1 and 2
de jure and de facto segregation
busing
Swann
judicial tests of equal protection
reasonable basis
strict scrutiny
suspect classification
Rostker v Goldberg
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Shelby v Holder
Civil Rights Act of 1968
housing
redlining
affirmative action
bakke
adarand
grutter
fischer v ut
struggle for equality
Black americans
partisanship
NAACP
Women
english common law
Seneca falls
15th and 19th amendments
FMLA
Hispanic americans
LULAC
MALDEF
growth
farm labor
undocumented labor
Native americans
manifest destiny
displacement
treaties
Bureau of Indian Affairs
AIM
Asian americans
Lau v Nichols
Others
Age
Disabilities
LGBTQ
Obergefell v Hodges
Chapter 15 - Economic and Environmental Policy
TARP
economy
laissez - faire economics
mixed economy
FDA
regulation
deregulation
new federalism
under regulation
economic efficiency
promoting competition
ICC
FTC
economic equity
FLSA
labor unions
progressive era
new deal
EPA
FCC
SEC
Dodd-Frank
externalities
silent spring
climate change
energy policy
NOAA
United Nations
promoting business
loans – tax breaks
NLRA
cooperative federalism
promoting agriculture
economic tool
fiscal policy
demand side economics
depression
recession
supply side economics
budget deficit
national debt
balanced budget
monetary policy
federal reserve system
controlling inflation
16 – Income, Welfare, and Education
income politics
income redistribution
progressive income tax
income tax brackets
GI Bill
tax policy and income inequality
capital gains tax
CBO
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
Wage Stagflation
manufacturing
service: banking, rental services, health care, entertainment, fast food, housekeeping
minimum wage
TPP
NAFTA
welfare policies
poverty line
public assistance programs
expanding federal role
cooperative federalism
WPA
ADC / AFDC / TANF
Social Security
Medicare / Medicaid
Welfare Reform Act of 1996
ACA of 2010
public assistance
eligibility
means test
in-kind benefit
social insurance
entitlement programs
AARP
EITC
Education policies
equality of opportunity
public education
leveling
federal role
grants in aid
War on Poverty
Higher Education Act 1965
partisan conflicts
economic security
Chapter 17 – Foreign Policy
TPP
NATO
CIA
NSA
WTOIMF
World Bank
isolationism
internationalist
bipolar
Cold War
containment
unipolar
multilateralism
war on terrorism
preemptive war doctrine
commander in chief
unilateralism
military policy
MAD
conventional and unconventional war
transnational terrorism
WND
Military industrial complex
foreign trade
economic globalization
tariffs
free trade
protectionism
america first
USMCA
hard power
soft power
From the Texas Tribune: Texas House approves bill that would allow people to carry a gun without a license
For 2306's look at gun policy.
- Click here for the article.
The Texas House has approved a bill that would allow handguns to be carried without a permit, marking a win for gun rights activists who have for years pushed the measure at the Legislature but a blow to El Paso Democrats who have been fighting for gun safety measures since the 2019 massacre in their hometown.
House Bill 1927, spearheaded by state Rep. Matt Schaefer, R-Tyler, would nix the requirement for Texas residents to obtain a license to carry handguns if they’re not prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a gun. Texans under current state law must generally be licensed to carry handguns, either openly or concealed.
“This bill should be called common-sense carry,” Schaefer said as he laid out the bill Thursday. He described a scenario in which two women — one who had time and resources to obtain a license to carry and another who did not — went for walks in different neighborhoods, arguing that the latter did not feel safe or well-equipped to protect their family.
Seven Democrats voted for the bill, according to an unofficial vote total: Terry Canales of Edinburg, who was a joint author; Ryan Guillen of Rio Grande City, another joint author; Harold Dutton of Houston; Richard Peña Raymond of Laredo; Tracy King of Batesville; Leo Pacheco of San Antonio and Eddie Morales Jr. of Eagle Pass. One Republican, Morgan Meyer of Dallas, voted against it. State Rep. Angie Chen Button, R-Richardson, was present but not voting.
Early on in Thursday's debate, state Rep. Joe Moody, D-El Paso, who serves as speaker pro tempore, pushed an amendment to the bill that would have effectively killed the legislation.
Moody, surrounded by other El Paso lawmakers at the House floor’s front mic, recalled the day of the El Paso massacre in August 2019, when a gunman killed 23 people. Moody said there has been no action in the wake of that mass shooting and others to prevent future tragedies.
From the Texas Tribune: Despite natural gas failures during winter storm, Texas lawmakers target renewable energy in the aftermath
For our look at Texas energy policy in 2306:
- Click here for the article.
Texas lawmakers have been advancing sweeping legislation to address some of the major issues stemming from February’s deadly winter storm and catastrophic power outages. But some of the legislative moves are targeting renewable energy sources, like wind and solar, which experts and some lawmakers say seems more like a way to protect oil and gas interests than fix problems with the state’s beleaguered power grid.
Tucked into Senate Bill 3, which seeks to overhaul the state’s electricity market, is a key provision that would shift the financial burden of ancillary services, which help ensure power is generated continuously to Texas’ main electricity grid, to renewable energy providers. Texas electric providers currently cover the ancillary services costs.
State Sen. Nathan Johnson, a Dallas Democrat, said he’d feel better about the bill “if there is logic to doing this.”
“But I’m convinced that we’re making a big mistake by attacking a problem that isn’t the problem just because we feel like it might be the problem, when the data says the opposite,” Johnson said on the Senate floor in late March.
Wind power is a renewable energy source that was expected to be a fraction of winter power generation. All sources — from natural gas, to nuclear, to coal, to solar — struggled to generate power during the February storm.
Yet some prominent Texas Republicans during and after the storm blamed the widespread outages on frozen wind turbines. Targeting renewable energy is not new for the Texas Legislature, but lawmakers have revamped their attacks on the sector after February’s power outages left millions without electricity for days.
Johnson ended up voting in favor of SB 3, which has now been referred to the House as it takes up a series of related, standalone bills. Johnson has said he ultimately voted in favor of SB 3 because there are more positives in the legislation than negatives.
- Click here for the article.
Texas lawmakers have been advancing sweeping legislation to address some of the major issues stemming from February’s deadly winter storm and catastrophic power outages. But some of the legislative moves are targeting renewable energy sources, like wind and solar, which experts and some lawmakers say seems more like a way to protect oil and gas interests than fix problems with the state’s beleaguered power grid.
Tucked into Senate Bill 3, which seeks to overhaul the state’s electricity market, is a key provision that would shift the financial burden of ancillary services, which help ensure power is generated continuously to Texas’ main electricity grid, to renewable energy providers. Texas electric providers currently cover the ancillary services costs.
State Sen. Nathan Johnson, a Dallas Democrat, said he’d feel better about the bill “if there is logic to doing this.”
“But I’m convinced that we’re making a big mistake by attacking a problem that isn’t the problem just because we feel like it might be the problem, when the data says the opposite,” Johnson said on the Senate floor in late March.
Wind power is a renewable energy source that was expected to be a fraction of winter power generation. All sources — from natural gas, to nuclear, to coal, to solar — struggled to generate power during the February storm.
Yet some prominent Texas Republicans during and after the storm blamed the widespread outages on frozen wind turbines. Targeting renewable energy is not new for the Texas Legislature, but lawmakers have revamped their attacks on the sector after February’s power outages left millions without electricity for days.
Johnson ended up voting in favor of SB 3, which has now been referred to the House as it takes up a series of related, standalone bills. Johnson has said he ultimately voted in favor of SB 3 because there are more positives in the legislation than negatives.
From Wikipedia: Manifest Destiny
- Click here for the entry
Manifest destiny was a widely held cultural belief in the 19th-century United States that American settlers were destined to expand across North America. There are three basic themes to manifest destiny:
The special virtues of the American people and their institutions
The mission of the United States to redeem and remake the west in the image of the agrarian East
An irresistible destiny to accomplish this essential duty
Historian Frederick Merk says this concept was born out of "a sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example … generated by the potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven". In contemporary culture many have condemned manifest destiny as an ideology that was used to justify genocide against Native Americans.
Historians have emphasized that "manifest destiny" was a contested concept—Democrats endorsed the idea but many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and most Whigs) rejected it. Historian Daniel Walker Howe writes, "American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity … Whigs saw America's moral mission as one of democratic example rather than one of conquest." Historian Frederick Merk likewise concluded: "From the outset Manifest Destiny—vast in program, in its sense of continentalism—was slight in support. It lacked national, sectional, or party following commensurate with its magnitude. The reason was it did not reflect the national spirit. The thesis that it embodied nationalism, found in much historical writing, is backed by little real supporting evidence."
Newspaper editor John O'Sullivan is generally credited with coining the term manifest destiny in 1845 to describe the essence of this mindset; some historians believe, however, that the unsigned editorial titled "Annexation" in which it first appeared was written by journalist and annexation advocate Jane Cazneau. The term was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the Mexican–American War and it was also used to negotiate the Oregon boundary dispute. However, manifest destiny always limped along because of its internal limitations and the issue of slavery in the United States, says Merk, and never became a national priority. By 1843, former U.S. President John Quincy Adams, originally a major supporter of the concept underlying manifest destiny, had changed his mind and repudiated expansionism because it meant the expansion of slavery in Texas.
According to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia, Adolf Hitler's Lebensraum was the "Manifest Destiny" for Germany's romanticization and imperial conquest of Eastern Europe. Hitler compared Nazi expansion to American expansion westward, saying, “there's only one duty: to Germanize this country [Russia] by the immigration of Germans and to look upon the natives as Redskins."
Manifest destiny was a widely held cultural belief in the 19th-century United States that American settlers were destined to expand across North America. There are three basic themes to manifest destiny:
The special virtues of the American people and their institutions
The mission of the United States to redeem and remake the west in the image of the agrarian East
An irresistible destiny to accomplish this essential duty
Historian Frederick Merk says this concept was born out of "a sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example … generated by the potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven". In contemporary culture many have condemned manifest destiny as an ideology that was used to justify genocide against Native Americans.
Historians have emphasized that "manifest destiny" was a contested concept—Democrats endorsed the idea but many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and most Whigs) rejected it. Historian Daniel Walker Howe writes, "American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity … Whigs saw America's moral mission as one of democratic example rather than one of conquest." Historian Frederick Merk likewise concluded: "From the outset Manifest Destiny—vast in program, in its sense of continentalism—was slight in support. It lacked national, sectional, or party following commensurate with its magnitude. The reason was it did not reflect the national spirit. The thesis that it embodied nationalism, found in much historical writing, is backed by little real supporting evidence."
Newspaper editor John O'Sullivan is generally credited with coining the term manifest destiny in 1845 to describe the essence of this mindset; some historians believe, however, that the unsigned editorial titled "Annexation" in which it first appeared was written by journalist and annexation advocate Jane Cazneau. The term was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the Mexican–American War and it was also used to negotiate the Oregon boundary dispute. However, manifest destiny always limped along because of its internal limitations and the issue of slavery in the United States, says Merk, and never became a national priority. By 1843, former U.S. President John Quincy Adams, originally a major supporter of the concept underlying manifest destiny, had changed his mind and repudiated expansionism because it meant the expansion of slavery in Texas.
According to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia, Adolf Hitler's Lebensraum was the "Manifest Destiny" for Germany's romanticization and imperial conquest of Eastern Europe. Hitler compared Nazi expansion to American expansion westward, saying, “there's only one duty: to Germanize this country [Russia] by the immigration of Germans and to look upon the natives as Redskins."
From Wikipedia: The Progressive Era
- Click here for the entry.
The Progressive Era (1896–1916) was a period of widespread social activism and political reform across the United States of America that spanned the 1890s to the 1920s.Progressive reformers were typically middle-class society women or Christian ministers. The main objectives of the Progressive movement were addressing problems caused by industrialization, urbanization, immigration, and political corruption. Social reformers were primarily middle-class citizens who targeted political machines and their bosses. By taking down these corrupt representatives in office, a further means of direct democracy would be established. They also sought regulation of monopolies (trustbusting) and corporations through antitrust laws, which were seen as a way to promote equal competition for the advantage of legitimate competitors. They also advocated for new government roles and regulations, and new agencies to carry out those roles, such as the FDA. The Progressive Era played a pivotal role in US history.
Many progressives supported prohibition of alcoholic beverages, ostensibly to destroy the political power of local bosses based in saloons, but others out of religious motivation. Women's suffrage was promoted to bring a "purer" female vote into the arena. A third theme was building an Efficiency Movement in every sector that could identify old ways that needed modernizing and bring to bear scientific, medical, and engineering solutions; a key part of the efficiency movement was scientific management, or "Taylorism". In Michael McGerr's book A Fierce Discontent, Jane Addams stated that she believed in the necessity of "association" of stepping across the social boundaries of industrial America.[4]
Many activists joined efforts to reform local government, public education, medicine, finance, insurance, industry, railroads, churches, and many other areas. Progressives transformed, professionalized, and made "scientific" the social sciences, especially history, economics, and political science. In academic fields, the day of the amateur author gave way to the research professor who published in the new scholarly journals and presses. The national political leaders included Republicans Theodore Roosevelt, Robert M. La Follette and Charles Evans Hughes, and Democrats William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson and Al Smith. Leaders of the movement also existed far from presidential politics: Jane Addams, Grace Abbott, Edith Abbott and Sophonisba Breckinridge were among the most influential non-governmental Progressive Era reformers.
Initially, the movement operated chiefly at the local level, but later it expanded to the state and national levels. Progressives drew support from the middle class, and supporters included many lawyers, teachers, physicians, ministers, and business people. Some Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family. They closely followed advances underway at the time in Western Europe and adopted numerous policies, such as a major transformation of the banking system by creating the Federal Reserve System in 1913 and the arrival of cooperative banking in the US with the founding of its first credit union in 1908. Reformers felt that old-fashioned ways meant waste and inefficiency, and eagerly sought out the "one best system"
The Progressive Era (1896–1916) was a period of widespread social activism and political reform across the United States of America that spanned the 1890s to the 1920s.Progressive reformers were typically middle-class society women or Christian ministers. The main objectives of the Progressive movement were addressing problems caused by industrialization, urbanization, immigration, and political corruption. Social reformers were primarily middle-class citizens who targeted political machines and their bosses. By taking down these corrupt representatives in office, a further means of direct democracy would be established. They also sought regulation of monopolies (trustbusting) and corporations through antitrust laws, which were seen as a way to promote equal competition for the advantage of legitimate competitors. They also advocated for new government roles and regulations, and new agencies to carry out those roles, such as the FDA. The Progressive Era played a pivotal role in US history.
Many progressives supported prohibition of alcoholic beverages, ostensibly to destroy the political power of local bosses based in saloons, but others out of religious motivation. Women's suffrage was promoted to bring a "purer" female vote into the arena. A third theme was building an Efficiency Movement in every sector that could identify old ways that needed modernizing and bring to bear scientific, medical, and engineering solutions; a key part of the efficiency movement was scientific management, or "Taylorism". In Michael McGerr's book A Fierce Discontent, Jane Addams stated that she believed in the necessity of "association" of stepping across the social boundaries of industrial America.[4]
Many activists joined efforts to reform local government, public education, medicine, finance, insurance, industry, railroads, churches, and many other areas. Progressives transformed, professionalized, and made "scientific" the social sciences, especially history, economics, and political science. In academic fields, the day of the amateur author gave way to the research professor who published in the new scholarly journals and presses. The national political leaders included Republicans Theodore Roosevelt, Robert M. La Follette and Charles Evans Hughes, and Democrats William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson and Al Smith. Leaders of the movement also existed far from presidential politics: Jane Addams, Grace Abbott, Edith Abbott and Sophonisba Breckinridge were among the most influential non-governmental Progressive Era reformers.
Initially, the movement operated chiefly at the local level, but later it expanded to the state and national levels. Progressives drew support from the middle class, and supporters included many lawyers, teachers, physicians, ministers, and business people. Some Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family. They closely followed advances underway at the time in Western Europe and adopted numerous policies, such as a major transformation of the banking system by creating the Federal Reserve System in 1913 and the arrival of cooperative banking in the US with the founding of its first credit union in 1908. Reformers felt that old-fashioned ways meant waste and inefficiency, and eagerly sought out the "one best system"
From Wikipedia: Political movements in the United States
For a good at their range, click here.
A
► Abolitionism in the United States (16 C, 95 P)
► American Indian Movement (1 C, 24 P)
► American nationalism (9 C, 30 P)
► Anarchism in the United States (9 C, 26 P)
► Anti-communism in the United States (12 C, 165 P)
► Anti-fascism in the United States (5 C, 19 P)
► Anti-Zionism in the United States (1 C, 57 P)
C
► Cannabis politics in the United States (2 C)
► Centrism in the United States (3 C, 19 P)
► Christianity and politics in the United States (5 C, 17 P)
► Communism in the United States (11 C, 41 P)
► Conservatism in the United States (15 C, 367 P)
D
► Defunct American political movements (6 C, 61 P)
E
► English-only movement in the United States (19 P)
► Environmentalism in the United States (7 C, 18 P)
F
► Far-left politics in the United States (2 C, 75 P)
► Far-right politics in the United States (20 C, 259 P)
► Fascism in the United States (3 C, 19 P)
► Feminism in the United States (13 C, 70 P)
G
► Gun politics in the United States (10 C, 164 P)
I
► Indigenous politics in the United States (1 C)
► Islamism in the United States (3 C, 2 P)
L
► Labor movement in the United States (4 C, 6 P)
► Left-wing politics in the United States (9 C, 21 P)
► Liberalism in the United States (7 C, 124 P)
► Libertarianism in the United States (10 C, 71 P)
M
► Men's movement in the United States (12 P)
N
► Nationalism in the United States (9 C, 3 P)
► Naturism in the United States (1 C, 14 P)
► Neo-Nazism in the United States (5 C, 44 P)
► Neoconservatism (4 C, 53 P)
► New Left (5 C, 11 P)
O
► Occupy movement in the United States (4 C, 41 P)
P
► Pacifism in the United States (3 C, 9 P)
► Paleoconservatism (5 C, 56 P)
► Pan-Africanism in the United States (1 C, 5 P)
► Patriot movement (1 C, 36 P)
► Progressivism in the United States (17 C, 118 P)
► Protests in the United States (13 C, 123 P)
R
► Republicanism in the United States (1 C, 7 P)
► Right-wing politics in the United States (5 C, 22 P)
S
► Secularism in the United States (8 C, 8 P)
► Separatism in the United States (9 C, 48 P)
► Socialism in the United States (10 C, 61 P)
► Squatting in the United States (1 C, 21 P)
T
► Tea Party movement (3 C, 51 P)
Y
► Youth politics in the United States (1 C, 5 P)
Z
► The Zeitgeist Movement (3 P)
► Zionism in the United States (4 C, 64 P)
From Britannica: Schemas
For the full article, click here.
Schema, in social science, mental structures that an individual uses to organize knowledge and guide cognitive processes and behaviour. People use schemata (the plural of schema) to categorize objects and events based on common elements and characteristics and thus interpret and predict the world. New information is processed according to how it fits into these mental structures, or rules. In social science, particularly in cognitive science, it is understood that humans retrieve knowledge from various areas to draw conclusions about missing or non-evidential information, such as during decision making or political evaluation. Schemata represent the ways in which the characteristics of certain events or objects are recalled, as determined by one’s self-knowledge and cultural-political background. Examples of schemata include rubrics, perceived social roles, stereotypes, and worldviews.
The concept of schema was first introduced into psychology by British psychologist Frederic Bartlett in Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology (1932). Bartlett perceived organized knowledge as an elaborate network of abstract mental structures that represent a person’s understanding of the world, and he studied the impact of one’s cultural background in rephrasing and memorizing certain events. For example, in one of his best-known studies, he examined whether subjects could recall events that strongly deviate from their own environmental background, and he showed that the more culturally different one’s own background was from that of the presented story, the less likely it was that participants could remember the story. Bartlett concluded that the participants distorted the presented story in favour of their own cultural stereotypes, and details that were difficult to interpret were omitted because they did not fit in with the participants’ own schemata.
In general, the learner in schema theory actively builds schemata and revises them in light of repeated exposure to new information. Here it is important to mention that each schema is unique and depends on an individual’s experiences and cognitive processes. American psychologist David Ausubel introduced his “meaningful learning theory” in Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View (1968). He argued that there is a hierarchical organization of knowledge and that new information can be incorporated into the already existing hierarchy. In contrast, Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget argued that there is more than one body of knowledge available to learners. Piaget claimed that there exists a network of context-specific bodies of knowledge and that humans apply those bodies of knowledge according to specific situations.
Schema, in social science, mental structures that an individual uses to organize knowledge and guide cognitive processes and behaviour. People use schemata (the plural of schema) to categorize objects and events based on common elements and characteristics and thus interpret and predict the world. New information is processed according to how it fits into these mental structures, or rules. In social science, particularly in cognitive science, it is understood that humans retrieve knowledge from various areas to draw conclusions about missing or non-evidential information, such as during decision making or political evaluation. Schemata represent the ways in which the characteristics of certain events or objects are recalled, as determined by one’s self-knowledge and cultural-political background. Examples of schemata include rubrics, perceived social roles, stereotypes, and worldviews.
The concept of schema was first introduced into psychology by British psychologist Frederic Bartlett in Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology (1932). Bartlett perceived organized knowledge as an elaborate network of abstract mental structures that represent a person’s understanding of the world, and he studied the impact of one’s cultural background in rephrasing and memorizing certain events. For example, in one of his best-known studies, he examined whether subjects could recall events that strongly deviate from their own environmental background, and he showed that the more culturally different one’s own background was from that of the presented story, the less likely it was that participants could remember the story. Bartlett concluded that the participants distorted the presented story in favour of their own cultural stereotypes, and details that were difficult to interpret were omitted because they did not fit in with the participants’ own schemata.
In general, the learner in schema theory actively builds schemata and revises them in light of repeated exposure to new information. Here it is important to mention that each schema is unique and depends on an individual’s experiences and cognitive processes. American psychologist David Ausubel introduced his “meaningful learning theory” in Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View (1968). He argued that there is a hierarchical organization of knowledge and that new information can be incorporated into the already existing hierarchy. In contrast, Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget argued that there is more than one body of knowledge available to learners. Piaget claimed that there exists a network of context-specific bodies of knowledge and that humans apply those bodies of knowledge according to specific situations.
From Wikipedia: Group Think
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Cohesiveness, or the desire for cohesiveness, in a group may produce a tendency among its members to agree at all costs. This causes the group to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation.
Groupthink is a construct of social psychology, but has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields of communication studies, political science, management, and organizational theory, as well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.
Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of those with differing political views (such as "conservatism" and "liberalism" in the U.S. political context ) or the purported benefits of team work vs. work conducted in solitude. However, this conformity of viewpoints within a group does not mainly involve deliberate group decision-making, and might be better explained by the collective confirmation bias of the individual members of the group.
Examples:
Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The United States Bay of Pigs Invasion of April 1961 was the primary case study that Janis used to formulate his theory of groupthink.[10] The invasion plan was initiated by the Eisenhower administration, but when the Kennedy administration took over, it "uncritically accepted" the plan of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[10]:44 When some people, such as Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and Senator J. William Fulbright, attempted to present their objections to the plan, the Kennedy team as a whole ignored these objections and kept believing in the morality of their plan.[10]:46 Eventually Schlesinger minimized his own doubts, performing self-censorship.[10]:74 The Kennedy team stereotyped Fidel Castro and the Cubans by failing to question the CIA about its many false assumptions, including the ineffectiveness of Castro's air force, the weakness of Castro's army, and the inability of Castro to quell internal uprisings.[10]:46
Janis argued the fiasco that ensued could have been prevented if the Kennedy administration had followed the methods to preventing groupthink adopted during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which took place just one year later in October 1962. In the latter crisis, essentially the same political leaders were involved in decision-making, but this time they learned from their previous mistake of seriously under-rating their opponents.[10]:76
Pearl Harbor[edit]
The attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, is a prime example of groupthink. A number of factors such as shared illusions and rationalizations contributed to the lack of precaution taken by U.S. Navy officers based in Hawaii. The United States had intercepted Japanese messages and they discovered that Japan was arming itself for an offensive attack somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. Washington took action by warning officers stationed at Pearl Harbor, but their warning was not taken seriously. They assumed that the Empire of Japan was taking measures in the event that their embassies and consulates in enemy territories were usurped.
The U.S. Navy and Army in Pearl Harbor also shared rationalizations about why an attack was unlikely. Some of them included:[12]:83,85
"The Japanese would never dare attempt a full-scale surprise assault against Hawaii because they would realize that it would precipitate an all-out war, which the United States would surely win."
"The Pacific Fleet concentrated at Pearl Harbor was a major deterrent against air or naval attack."
"Even if the Japanese were foolhardy to send their carriers to attack us [the United States], we could certainly detect and destroy them in plenty of time."
"No warships anchored in the shallow water of Pearl Harbor could ever be sunk by torpedo bombs launched from enemy aircraft."
Groupthink is a construct of social psychology, but has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields of communication studies, political science, management, and organizational theory, as well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.
Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of those with differing political views (such as "conservatism" and "liberalism" in the U.S. political context ) or the purported benefits of team work vs. work conducted in solitude. However, this conformity of viewpoints within a group does not mainly involve deliberate group decision-making, and might be better explained by the collective confirmation bias of the individual members of the group.
Examples:
Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The United States Bay of Pigs Invasion of April 1961 was the primary case study that Janis used to formulate his theory of groupthink.[10] The invasion plan was initiated by the Eisenhower administration, but when the Kennedy administration took over, it "uncritically accepted" the plan of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[10]:44 When some people, such as Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and Senator J. William Fulbright, attempted to present their objections to the plan, the Kennedy team as a whole ignored these objections and kept believing in the morality of their plan.[10]:46 Eventually Schlesinger minimized his own doubts, performing self-censorship.[10]:74 The Kennedy team stereotyped Fidel Castro and the Cubans by failing to question the CIA about its many false assumptions, including the ineffectiveness of Castro's air force, the weakness of Castro's army, and the inability of Castro to quell internal uprisings.[10]:46
Janis argued the fiasco that ensued could have been prevented if the Kennedy administration had followed the methods to preventing groupthink adopted during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which took place just one year later in October 1962. In the latter crisis, essentially the same political leaders were involved in decision-making, but this time they learned from their previous mistake of seriously under-rating their opponents.[10]:76
Pearl Harbor[edit]
The attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, is a prime example of groupthink. A number of factors such as shared illusions and rationalizations contributed to the lack of precaution taken by U.S. Navy officers based in Hawaii. The United States had intercepted Japanese messages and they discovered that Japan was arming itself for an offensive attack somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. Washington took action by warning officers stationed at Pearl Harbor, but their warning was not taken seriously. They assumed that the Empire of Japan was taking measures in the event that their embassies and consulates in enemy territories were usurped.
The U.S. Navy and Army in Pearl Harbor also shared rationalizations about why an attack was unlikely. Some of them included:[12]:83,85
"The Japanese would never dare attempt a full-scale surprise assault against Hawaii because they would realize that it would precipitate an all-out war, which the United States would surely win."
"The Pacific Fleet concentrated at Pearl Harbor was a major deterrent against air or naval attack."
"Even if the Japanese were foolhardy to send their carriers to attack us [the United States], we could certainly detect and destroy them in plenty of time."
"No warships anchored in the shallow water of Pearl Harbor could ever be sunk by torpedo bombs launched from enemy aircraft."
From Oxford: Political Socialization and the Making of Citizens
What do we know about how people think about government and politics?
- Click here for the story.
From National Affairs: Up and down with ecology—the "issue-attention cycle"
A highly influential article discussing the nature of attention paid to public issues.
Spoiler: It doesn't last
- Click here for the article.
Slave Law in Colonial Virginia: A Timeline
To help with our look the civil rights movement
Worth a look. Click here for it
Wednesday, April 14, 2021
GOVT 2306 - Key Terms - Section 4
Chapter 7 - Criminal Justice
justice
retribution
just desert
incarceration
incarceration rate
incapacitation
rehabilitation
restorative justice
recidivism
prison conditions
Ruiz v Estelle
Texas Rangers
private prisons
rights of the accused
indigent defense
civil justice
tort reform
loser pay laws
castle doctrine
capital punishment
rate of executions in Texas
winners and losers
Chapter 13 - Energy, Environment, Transportation and Trade Policies
oil and gas
oil’s influence on Texas
hot oil
eminent domain
natural gas and fracking
Texas Energy
energy use
environmental policy
regulation
negative externality
TCEQ
subsidence
rule of capture
hazardous waste
transportation
railroads
roads
funding roads
good roads amendment
public-private partnerships
mass transit
Texas trade
NAFTA
foreign direct investment
Chapter 14 – Social Policy
Education Policy
K-12
SBOE
Equality of Education
Funding
NCLB
ESSA
Edgewood v Kirby
Accountability and Reform
Education Reform Act
Unintended Consequences
Goals
School Choice
School Safety
Higher Education
Funding
PUF
THECB
Access
Sweatt v Painter
Hopwood
Fischer
rising costs
Health and Human Services
social welfare
redistribution programs
entitlement programs
TANF
SNAP
Health Care
federal and state programs
Medicaid
CHIP
Medicare
The politics of Health Care
Immigration Policy
cost and benefits of undocumented workers
justice
retribution
just desert
incarceration
incarceration rate
incapacitation
rehabilitation
restorative justice
recidivism
prison conditions
Ruiz v Estelle
Texas Rangers
private prisons
rights of the accused
indigent defense
civil justice
tort reform
loser pay laws
castle doctrine
capital punishment
rate of executions in Texas
winners and losers
Chapter 13 - Energy, Environment, Transportation and Trade Policies
oil and gas
oil’s influence on Texas
hot oil
eminent domain
natural gas and fracking
Texas Energy
energy use
environmental policy
regulation
negative externality
TCEQ
subsidence
rule of capture
hazardous waste
transportation
railroads
roads
funding roads
good roads amendment
public-private partnerships
mass transit
Texas trade
NAFTA
foreign direct investment
Chapter 14 – Social Policy
Education Policy
K-12
SBOE
Equality of Education
Funding
NCLB
ESSA
Edgewood v Kirby
Accountability and Reform
Education Reform Act
Unintended Consequences
Goals
School Choice
School Safety
Higher Education
Funding
PUF
THECB
Access
Sweatt v Painter
Hopwood
Fischer
rising costs
Health and Human Services
social welfare
redistribution programs
entitlement programs
TANF
SNAP
Health Care
federal and state programs
Medicaid
CHIP
Medicare
The politics of Health Care
Immigration Policy
cost and benefits of undocumented workers
GOVT 2305 - Key Terms - Section 4
To finish the semester out:
Chapter 6 - Public Opinion and Political Participation
sources of public opinion
political socialization
party identification
elite influence
focusing events
measuring public opinion
sampling error
response bias
margin of error
bandwagon effect
boomerang effect
nonattitudes
information shortcuts
groupthink
survey research
mandate
approval rating
policy agenda
traditional participation
civic volunteerism
direct action
civil disobedience
political voice
participation
why get involved
social capital
political mobilization
issue advocacy
discouraging political participation
alienation
voter turnout
paradox of voting
institutional barriers
complacency
internet
social media
Chapter 5 - Struggle for Civil Rights
civil rights
political equality
court cases
strict scrutiny
suspect categories
quasi
non-suspect
slavery
abolition
missoiri compromise
compromise of 1850
scott v sandford
emancipation proclamation
equal protection clause
reconstruction
literacy test
jim crow
Plessy v ferguson
de jure / de facto discrimination
brown v board 1 and 2
litigation
test cases
civil rights movement
freedom riders
march on washington
civil rights act of 1964
affirmative acrtion
disproportionate impact
school busing
women’s rights
suffrage
EEOC
NOW
ERA
reframing the issue / issue definition
class action
Hispanics
Immigration
- citizens
- resident aliens
- illegal / undocumented immigrants
racial profiling
political mobilization
Asian Americans
Native Americans
domestic dependent nation
groups without special protection
disabilities
section 504
sexual orientation
gender identity
income equality
social equality
Chapter 14 - Domestic and foreign policy
public policy making process
agenda setting
focusing events
policy agenda
framing
policy formation
cost-benefit analysis
policy window
policy implementation
rulemaking
top-down delivery
bottom-up delivery
policy evaluation
US social policy
social security
gross domestic product
unemployment benefits
health and disability
medicare / Medicaid
federal poverty line
economic policymaking
fiscal policy
monetary policy
entitlement programs
the federal budget process
the federal budget deficit
fiscal year
budget resolution
discretionary program
continuing resolution
foreign policy
security
military primacy
realism
liberalism
security trap
soft power
prosperity
bi-polar / uni-polar
trade deficit
free trade
protectionism
WTO
World Bank
Import-Export Bank
fair trade
energy
economic weapons
spreading American ideals
American exceptionalism
theory of democratic peace
the mcdonalds theory
congress
war powers act”
the president
the state department
the department of defense
grand strategies in US defense
standing alone
isolationism
unilateralism”
the cold war
multi literalism
containment
multilateral organization
new world order
war on terror
preemptive war
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)