https://millennialdream.substack.com/p/use-the-us-military-to-build-a-national
Friday, June 30, 2023
Thursday, June 29, 2023
An Overview of the History of Public Education in Texas
- Texas Education Agency: - An Overview of the History of Public Education in Texas.
- Texas Comptroller: THE LITIGATION THAT SHAPED TEXAS PUBLIC EDUCATION.
- San Antonio School District v Rodriquez.
-
Wednesday, June 28, 2023
Links - 6/28/23
https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/home
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-5-6/ALDE_00013807/
https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=126764
https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/texas-needs-state-brain-research-institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate
https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/private-prisons-in-the-united-states/
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/
From ScotusBlog: Justices throw out Colorado man’s stalking conviction in First Amendment dispute
The case involves questions about what constitutes a "true threat."
- Click here for the decision in COUNTERMAN v. COLORADO.
- Click here for ScotusBlog's page on COUNTERMAN v. COLORADO.
- Click here for the article.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out the conviction of Billy Raymond Counterman, a Colorado man who was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison for stalking based on his Facebook messages. By a vote of 7-2, the justices ruled that the state courts had applied the wrong test to determine whether Counterman’s statements were “true threats,” which are not protected by the First Amendment. Instead of focusing on whether a reasonable person would regard the man’s statements as a threat of violence, the Supreme Court ruled, courts should look at whether prosecutors had shown that Counterman had made the threats recklessly – that is, whether he was aware that the recipient, local Colorado musician Coles Whalen, could regard his speech as a threat, but made them anyway.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court, with an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote an opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, in which she agreed with the result that the court reached but not all of its reasoning. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion and joined a dissenting opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
The events leading to Thursday’s ruling began nearly a decade ago, when Counterman sent a Facebook friend request to Whalen, a singer-songwriter then based in Denver whose career was on the rise. Over the next few years, Counterman sent messages to Whalen that she described as “weird” and “creepy,” and although she attempted to stop the messages by blocking him on Facebook, Counterman would simply create new accounts.
When the messages became increasingly menacing – referring to having seen her in person and suggesting that she should die – Whalen’s mental health declined. She canceled appearances, started to carry a gun, and eventually left Colorado for the east coast.
Prosecutors in Colorado charged Counterman with stalking. At trial, he argued that his messages to Whalen were not “true threats” because he didn’t actually intend to harm Whalen; instead, he contended, they were speech protected by the First Amendment. The trial court rejected that argument and he was convicted and sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison; a Colorado appeals court upheld his conviction in 2021.
Counterman came to the Supreme Court last summer, asking the justices to weigh in. In a 14-page opinion on Tuesday, the justices sent his case back to the state courts, holding that the state courts should have applied a different test to determine whether Counterman’s statements were “true threats.”
From the Texas Tribune: Texas to receive $3.3 billion in federal funds to boost broadband expansion efforts
Public policy, public utilities, market failure, and fiscal federalism - all in one.
- Click here for the article.
- Click here for the article.
Texas will receive more than $3.3 billion in federal money — the most of any state — to help expand broadband availability statewide, the Biden administration announced Monday.
The money will be distributed from the $42.45 billion in the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment program as part of President Joe Biden’s 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The funds aim to connect more than 8.5 million households and small businesses nationwide — and nearly 2.8 million of those households without broadband are in Texas. Each state received at least $107 million.
Separately, the BEAD program includes more than $14 billion in funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program, which makes broadband service more affordable for eligible households nationwide (and can be applied for now), $2 billion for the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, and $2 billion for the Department of Agriculture’s Reconnect Program that provides loans and grants to build broadband infrastructure in eligible rural areas.
Texas and the other states can submit initial funding proposals from July 1 through Dec. 27. After the National Telecommunications and Information Administration approves proposals, which will occur on a rolling basis, states and territories will be able to access at least 20% of their funds. The Texas Broadband Development Office will allocate the funds, which will go to where the state and federal broadband maps indicate service is needed. However, service providers and local officials have disputed the accuracy of those maps.
The Biden administration has compared its investment in broadband to the 1936 Rural Electrification Act, which offered low-cost loans to help bring electricity to rural areas.
For more on the 1936 Rural Electrification Act, click here.
The Rural Electrification Act of 1936, enacted on May 20, 1936, provided federal loans for the installation of electrical distribution systems to serve isolated rural areas of the United States.
The funding was channeled through cooperative electric power companies, hundreds of which still exist today. These member-owned cooperatives purchased power on a wholesale basis and distributed it using their own network of transmission and distribution lines. The Rural Electrification Act was one of many New Deal proposals by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to remedy high unemployment during the Great Depression.
What is Market Failure?
A principle justification for governmental intervention in the economy. The ideal market place is supposed to be efficient, but in reality this is not the case. It fails in key ways. Which helps explain why many governing agencies exist. Governments on all three levels in the United States were established largely to create markets.
- Market Failure: What It Is in Economics, Common Types, and Causes.
What Is Market Failure?
Market failure, in economics, is a situation defined by an inefficient distribution of goods and services in the free market. In an ideally functioning market, the forces of supply and demand balance each other out, with a change in one side of the equation leading to a change in price that maintains the market's equilibrium. In a market failure, however, something interferes with this balance.
When markets fail, the individual incentives for rational behavior do not lead to rational outcomes for the group. In other words, each individual makes the correct decision for themselves, but those prove to be the wrong decisions for the group as a whole.
Understanding Market Failure
A market failure refers to the inefficient distribution of resources that occurs when the individuals in a group end up worse off than if they had not acted in rational self-interest. In the case of a market failure, the overall group incurs too many costs or receives too few benefits. The economic outcomes under market failure deviate from what economists usually consider optimal and are usually not economically efficient.
Contrary to what the name implies, market failure does not describe imperfections just in the market economy—there can be market failures in government activity, too. One noteworthy example is rent seeking by special interest groups.2 Special interest groups can benefit by lobbying for small costs on everyone else, such as through a tariff. When each small group imposes its costs, the whole group is worse off than if no lobbying had taken place.
Not every bad outcome from market activity counts as a market failure. In addition, while correcting the imbalances underlying a market failure often requires government intervention, private-market actors may also be able to solve the problem. On the flip side, not all market failures have a potential solution, even with prudent regulation or extra public awareness.
Causes of Market Failure
There are many types of imbalances that can affect the equilibrium of the markets. The following list provides an overview of some common causes of market failure.
- Externalities: Externalities occur when the consumption of a good or service benefits or harms a third party. Pollution resulting from the production of certain goods is an example of a negative externality that can hurt individuals and communities. The collateral damage caused by negative externalities may lead to market failure.4
- Information failure: When there is insufficient information available to certain participants in the market, this can also be the source of market failure. If the buyer or seller in a transaction lacks access to the information on which the price is based, they may be willing to overpay or undercharge for a good or service, disrupting the market's equilibrium.
- Market control: When one party has too much control over a market, this can also create imbalanced pricing and lead to market failure.6 In the case of a monopoly or oligopoly, a single seller or a small group of sellers can manipulate pricing. In other situations, known as monopsony or oligopsony, it is the buyers that have the advantage. In either case, the disrupted balance of supply and demand could cause market failure.
- Public goods: Public goods are another example of market failure because they defy the tenets of supply and demand that drive the free markets. Public goods and services are nonexcludable—once something like a street light is produced, it is accessible to everyone, and the producer cannot limit consumption only to paying customers. Public goods are also nonrival, as use by one individual does not limit consumption by others. Given these characteristics, the private sector has little incentive to produce public goods, which leads to market failure, and the government usually has to provide these goods or subsidize their production.
Externalities:
- Clean Water Act.
- National Environmental Policy Act.
Information failure:
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Market Control:
- Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Public Goods:
- The U.S. Constitution.
- Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.
Public Goods - What are they? What types exist?
Why are goods supplied to begin with?
- Economic demand. Economic demand is a principle that refers to a consumer’s demand for a particular product, as well as the price they’re willing to pay for that product. While demand is highly variable due to outside factors, the basic concept is that economic demand will decrease as price increases.
- The profit motive. the intent to achieve a monetary gain in a project, transaction, or material endeavor. Profit motive can also be construed as the underlying reason why a taxpayer or company participates in business activities of any kind. Simply put, the profit motive suggests that people tend to take actions that will result in them making money (profiting).
Can all that is demanded be allow for profit? No
- What is a public good? In economics, a public good refers to a commodity or service that is made available to all members of society. Typically, these services are administered by governments and paid for collectively through taxation. Examples of public goods include law enforcement, national defense, and the rule of law. Public goods also refer to more basic goods, such as access to clean air and drinking water.
- what is a private good? A private good is a product that must be purchased to be consumed, and consumption by one individual prevents another individual from consuming it. In other words, a good is considered to be a private good if there is competition between individuals to obtain the good and if consuming the good prevents someone else from consuming it. Economists refer to private goods as rivalrous and excludable, and can be contrasted with public goods.
Categories of public goods:
What does exhaustive mean? Non-rivalrous goods are public goods that are consumed by people but whose supply is not affected by people’s consumption. In other words, when an individual or a group of individuals use a particular good, the supply left for other people to use remains unchanged. Therefore, non-rivalrous goods can be consumed over and over again without the fear of depletion of supply.
What does exclusive mean? In economics, a good, service or resource are broadly assigned two fundamental characteristics; a degree of excludability and a degree of rivalry. Excludability is defined as the degree to which a good, service or resource can be limited to only paying customers, or conversely, the degree to which a supplier, producer or other managing body (e.g. a government) can prevent "free" consumption of a good.
Social Goods
- Education
- Libraries
- Housing
- Health Care
Common-Pool Goods
- Aquifers
- Fisheries
- Forests
- Groundwater
Toll Goods
- Broadcasting Airwaves
- National Parks
- Toll Roads
- Toll Bridges
Pure Public Goods
- Clean Air
- National Defense
- Pollution Abatement
- Street Lights
For more:
- What are public goods?
- What Is a Rival Good vs. a Non-Rival Good, With Examples.
- Non-Rivalrous Goods.
- Excludability.
Tuesday, June 27, 2023
1st United States Congress
For our look at how the U.S. Constitution was transformed into institutions.
- Click here for the entry.
Session 1
Held March 4, 1789, through September 29, 1789, at Federal Hall in New York City- June 1, 1789: An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, ch. 1, 1 Stat. 23
- July 4, 1789: Tariff of 1789, ch. 2, 1 Stat. 24
- July 27, 1789: United States Department of State was established, originally named the Department of Foreign Affairs, ch. 4, 1 Stat. 28.
- July 31, 1789: Regulation of the Collection of Duties on Tonnage and Merchandise, ch.5, 1 Stat. 29, which established the United States Customs Service and its ports of entry.
- August 7, 1789: Department of War was established, ch. 7, 1 Stat. 49.
- September 2, 1789: United States Department of the Treasury was established, ch. 12, 1 Stat. 65
- September 24, 1789: Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73, which established the federal judiciary and the office of Attorney General
Session 2
Held January 4, 1790, through August 12, 1790, at Federal Hall in New York City- March 1, 1790: Made provisions for the first Census, ch. 2, 1 Stat. 101
- March 26, 1790: Naturalization Act of 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103
- April 10, 1790: Patent Act of 1790, ch. 7, 1 Stat. 109
- April 30, 1790: Crimes Act of 1790, ch. 9, 1 Stat. 112
- May 31, 1790: Copyright Act of 1790, ch. 15, 1 Stat. 124
- July 16, 1790: Residence Act, ch. 28, 1 Stat. 130, established Washington, D.C., as the seat of government of the United States.
- July 22, 1790: Indian Intercourse Act of 1790, ch. 33, 1 Stat. 137, regulated commerce with the Indian tribes.
- August 4, 1790: Funding Act of 1790, ch. 34, 1 Stat. 138, authorized the "full assumption" of state debts by the federal government.
- August 4, 1790: Collection of Duties Act, ch.35, 1 Stat. 145, among its provisions is Sec. 62, 1 Stat. 175, authorizing establishment of the Revenue-Marine, since 1915 the United States Coast Guard.
- August 10, 1790: Tariff of 1790, ch. 39, 1 Stat. 180
Session 3
Held December 6, 1790, through March 3, 1791, at Congress Hall in Philadelphia- February 18, 1791: Admission of Vermont postdated to March 4, ch. 10, 1 Stat. 191
- February 25, 1791: First Bank of the United States, ch. 10, 1 Stat. 191
- March 3, 1791: Tariff of 1791, ch. 15, 1 Stat. 199, which triggered the Whiskey Rebellion
What Is Public Policy?
In this final section we look at what governments actually do. The general term for this is public policy, and its simplest it can be defined as whatever governments choose to do.
It's more complicated than that of course.
Some of what government do is provide the basic services and goods that people demand. These includes
Some various definitions:
From Project Citizens:
- Click here for it.
It's more complicated than that of course.
Some of what government do is provide the basic services and goods that people demand. These includes
Some various definitions:
From Project Citizens:
- Click here for it.
Getting scholars to agree on a single, all-inclusive definition of public policy is no easy task.
Broadly, we might say that a public policy is simply what government (any public official who influences or determines public policy, including school officials, city council members, county supervisors, etc.) does or does not do about a problem that comes before them for consideration and possible action.Specifically, public policy has a number of key attributes:
Policy is made in response to some sort of issue or problem that requires attention.
Policy is what the government chooses to do (actual) or not do (implied) about a particular issue or problem.
Policy might take the form of law, or regulation, or the set of all the laws and regulations that govern a particular issue or problem.
Policy is made on behalf of the "public."
Policy is oriented toward a goal or desired state, such as the solution of a problem.
Policy is ultimately made by governments, even if the ideas come from outside government or through the interaction of government and the public.
Policymaking is part of an ongoing process that does not always have a clear beginning or end, since decisions about who will benefit from policies and who will bear any burden resulting from the policy are continually reassessed, revisited and revised.
No doubt, there are many problems in our communities that need to be solved. Some problems may readily be dealt with by actions taken in the private sphere (individuals and families) or by our civil society (social, economic, or political associations or organizations).
Public policy problems are those that must be addressed by laws and regulations adopted by government.
From ScotusBlog: Supreme Court rules against North Carolina Republicans over election law theory
- Click here for the article.
- Moore v Harper.
In a major election-law decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that although the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to regulate federal elections, state courts can supervise the legislature’s exercise of that power. By a vote of 6-3, the court rejected the so-called “independent state legislature theory,” holding that the North Carolina Supreme Court did not violate the Constitution when it set aside a congressional map adopted by the state’s legislature.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, in an opinion joined by two of his conservative colleagues, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Thomas would not have reached the “independent state legislature theory” question at all. Instead, he would have dismissed the case as moot – that is, no longer a live controversy.
The dispute began as a challenge to a congressional map adopted by that state’s Republican-controlled legislature in early November 2021. Democratic voters and non-profits argued that the new map was a partisan gerrymander – that is, it was drawn to favor one political party at another’s expense. In particular, they contended, although the state is roughly divided between Democrats, Republicans, and unaffiliated voters, the new map likely would have given Republicans 10 out of 14 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
What is the Independent State Legislature Theory?
The independent state legislature theory or independent state legislature doctrine (ISL) is a judicially rejected legal theory that posits that the Constitution of the United States delegates authority to regulate federal elections within a state to that state's elected lawmakers without any checks and balances from state courts, governors, or other bodies with legislative power (such as constitutional conventions or independent commissions). ISL has been ruled against by all Supreme Court cases on the matter; most recently in June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the Elections Clause did not give state legislatures sole power over elections, rejecting the independent state legislature theory.
Advocates of ISL had grounded their interpretation in the Elections and Electors Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Where state legislatures enact laws that conflict with their state constitutions, including provisions added to those constitutions through ballot initiatives passed by a state's citizens, proponents of ISL believed that state legislation rather than state constitutions take precedence. They also argued that only the federal courts, not state courts, can resolve conflicts between state laws and state constitutions with respect to administration of federal elections within a state.
Sunday, June 25, 2023
Saturday, June 24, 2023
Key Terms: GOVT 2305 - Section 4
Chapter 5 - The Struggle for Civil Rights
abolition
affirmative action
black power
Brown v Board
chicanismo
civil rights
civil liberties
Civil Rights Act of 1964
class action
Compromise of 1850
de facto discrimination
de jure discrimination
disproportionate impact
domestic dependent nation
Dred Scott v Sanford
Emancipation Proclamation
Equal Employment Commission
Equal Protection of the Laws
Equal Rights Amendment
Freedom Riders
Great Migration
Jim Crow
Literacy test
Missouri Compromise
NAACP
NOW
Plessy v Ferguson
Racial profiling
Reconstruction
Reframing the issue
School busing
Section 504
Seneca Falls Convention
the new Jim Crow
Chapter 6 - Public Opinion and Political Participation
Approval rating
Bandwagon effect
Boomerang effect
Civic voluntarism
Civil disobedience
Clicktivism
Demographic group
Din
Direct action
Electoral activities
Framing effects
Groupthink
Information shortcuts
Issue advocacy
Likely voters
Mandate
Margin of sampling error
Nonattitudes
Paradox of voting
Policy agenda
Political elites
Political mobilization
Political socialization
Push poll
Response bias
Sampling frame
Social capital
Survey research
Traditional participation
Voter turnout
Chapter 14 - Domestic and Foreign Policy
American exceptionalism
Budget resolution
Containment
Continuing resolution
Cost-benefit analysis
Discretionary programs
Entitlement program
Fair trade
Federal budget deficit
Federal poverty line
Fiscal policy
Fiscal year
Focusing event
Free trade
Grand strategy
Gross Domestic Product
Isolationism
Liberalism
Monetary Policy
Multilateralism
Multilateral organization
Policy agenda
Policy window
Preemptive war
Primacy
Protectionism
Realism
Security trap
Soft power
Theory of democratic peace
Trade deficit
Unilateralism
War Powers Act
World Trade Organization
Friday, June 23, 2023
From the Houston Chronicle: Hotze-owned Katy company can deny employment to LGBTQ workers without legal recourse, court rules
A battle of constitutional rights. Equal treatment versus religious exercise.
- Click here for the article.
Just days before Houston's annual LGBTQ Pride Celebration, one of the city's most outspoken LGBTQ opponents landed a huge circuit court victory, with a trio of high court judges finding that his Katy company could deny employment to gay and transgender workers.
A panel of lifetime appointees from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in favor of Bear Creek Bible Church and Braidwood Management Inc., a Christian-based company owned and controlled by ultraconservative talk radio host Steven Hotze, a perennial filer of lawsuits against progressive causes and champion of the anti-transgender bathroom bill, who spearheaded a voter fraud investigation that ended in an armed confrontation. The court determined that the nondenominational Christian church in Katy and Hotze's health and wellness business are not mandated to abide by federal discrimination law and can therefore decide for themselves whether to hire or keep employees based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.
Braidwood Management follows the belief among some Christians that "marriage is between one man and one woman," the court's opinion said. When the company brought the case challenging the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it said it wouldn't hire people who engage in "sexually immoral or gender non-conforming" behaviors. The Bear Creek church's bylaws state that “marriage is exclusively the union of one genetic male and one genetic female.”
The church and business' complaint was filed as a 2018 class action in Houston federal court, on behalf of Hotze, the U.S. Pastor Council and others seeking a religious exemption to federal laws that prohibit workplace discrimination. The suit highlighted the fact that same-sex marriage is on equal terms as opposite-sex marriage, under federal law, and that workplace protection ensure that employees have access to restrooms based on their "gender identity." These are two policies from which the religious organizations sought exemptions.
From Axios: Impeachment, censure and contempt fervor takes over Congress
A critical look at recent sessions of Congress.
An example of congressional dysfunction.
- Click here for the article.
As House Republicans decry the weaponization of the federal government, they have been quick to wield their own power to impeach, censure and hold people in contempt of Congress.
Why it matters: Politicization is spiraling out of control, seeping into the congressional record as impeachment and censure resolutions far outpace the historical norm.
Driving the news:
The House voted 213-209 on Wednesday to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) over his role in investigating the 2016 Trump campaign's ties to Russia.Schiff led impeachment efforts against the former president.
Other members are now champing at the bit to get their own impeachment resolutions to the floor. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) has sparked internal chaos by trying to force a vote on impeaching President Biden this week.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) plans to follow suit and has filed five impeachment resolutions this Congress already.
By the numbers: House members have filed 12 impeachment resolutions this year, targeting Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of State Tony Blinken and others, according to data pulled by Quorum.Four were filed this month.
Four resolutions to censure Schiff and one to censure Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chair of the now-defunct House Jan. 6 committee, have been submitted since the start of the year.
House investigators have also made serious threats to hold contempt votes to force Biden officials to hand over more information.
Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) canceled an effort at the last minute to hold FBI Director Christiopher Wray in contempt to pressure him into handing over a document detailed unsubstantiated bribery allegations against the Biden family.
Foreign Affairs Chair Michael McCaul (R-Texas) similarly pulled a contempt resolution against Blinken, after he was finally granted access to a sensitive Afghanistan memo.
Republicans also introduced a resolution recommending former federal prosecutor Mark Pomerantz be held in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena related to the Manhattan DA's investigation of former President Trump.
The big picture: Still, the 2023 total falls short of the 26 impeachment, censure and contempt actions taken in 2021, which included steps taken by Democrats against Trump and other election deniers involved in Jan. 6.
Republicans also filed several impeachment and censure resolutions in 2021 against Biden officials and Democratic members.
Congress fails to override Biden veto
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/21/house-biden-veto-student-debt-00102993
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/01/senate-repeals-bidens-student-debt-relief-00099682
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/24/house-votes-repeal-biden-student-debt-plan-00098649
Thursday, June 22, 2023
From Axios: Scientists on Twitter head for the exit
This fits with our look at both interest groups and the media - as well the quality of information we receive.
Some media formats fit the needs of certain groups, some don't.
- Click here for the article.
Twitter is "no longer a tool that's accelerating science. On the contrary," said Michael Mina, chief science officer at eMed and a pediatric immunologist who regularly used Twitter during the pandemic to talk about COVID.
He still uses Twitter, but sparingly, and expects he'll leave completely within the next six months, he said."
It allowed me to effectively and efficiently sift through the noise of this massive explosion of new publishers and journals and papers that were published," Mina told Axios."That has gone away. It's now another big noisy mess," he said, adding he no longer gets pointed to relevant experts while those with the most polarizing content get promoted and discourse is drowned out.
Twitter did not respond to a request for comment.
The big picture: Since Musk acquired Twitter last year, the company has made cuts to its trust and safety staff, restored accounts of users banned for spreading misinformation and removed the platform's system for verifying trusted accounts.
In comments to Axios as well as online, scientists and medical researchers have said they're increasingly finding it difficult to find relevant information on Twitter. A recent study found Twitter's new algorithms are amplifying anger more since Musk took over the platform.
Hotez told Axios he's seen a clear shift in anti-vaccine views as part of a well-organized, well-financed anti-science movement, and that's playing out on the platform.
Others say the platform has at times become "scary" for many health professionals amid anti-science rhetoric. That's particularly the case for women and people of color, Caballero said.
What to watch: Several Twitter alternatives are emerging but it's not clear which, if any, will become the new platform of choice for scientists.
Experts often point to Mastodon, Bluesky and Meta's planned Twitter rival as possible options. Many scientists have been publishing elsewhere for a while on platforms like Substack.
Caballero suggested the future may be in a "decentralized" social media platform that mirrors the distribution model of podcasts, which have platforms such as Spotify and Apple.
Online research-sharing could shift to a less public model, Mina suggested.
Key Terms: GOVT 2305 - Section 3
Terms from the chapter on Congress:
Cloture Vote
- Wikipedia: a motion or process in parliamentary procedure aimed at bringing debate to a quick end.
- Wikipedia. History in the United States:
On 8 March 1917, during World War I, a rule allowing cloture of debate was adopted by the Senate by a vote of 76–3 at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, after a group of 12 anti-war senators managed to kill a bill that would have allowed Wilson to arm merchant vessels in the face of unrestricted German submarine warfare. This was successfully invoked for the first time on 15 November 1919, during the 66th Congress, to end a filibuster on the Treaty of Versailles.
Invoking Cloture in the Senate.
From Senate.Gov: About Filibusters and Cloture.
_________
Legislative Committees
- Wikipedia: United States congressional committee.
A congressional committee is a legislative sub-organization in the United States Congress that handles a specific duty (rather than the general duties of Congress). Committee membership enables members to develop specialized knowledge of the matters under their jurisdiction. As "little legislatures", the committees monitor ongoing governmental operations, identify issues suitable for legislative review, gather and evaluate information, and recommend courses of action to their parent body.
- Congress.Gov: Committees of the U.S. Congress.
- U.S. Senate: Frequently Asked Questions about Committees.
- U.S. House: In Committee.
__________
Committee Hearings
- U.S. Senate: Hearings & Meetings.
__________
Committee Markup Session
- Congressional Caucus
- Earmark
- Filibuster
- Floor
- Legislative Hold
- President pro tempore
- Reapportionment
- roll call vote
- Speaker of the House
- Unanimous consent
- veto
- voice votes
The Presidency:
- central clearance
- chief of staff
- civil servants
- delegated powers
- executive agreements
- Executive Office of the Presidency
- Executive order
- executive privilege
- expressed power
- going public
- imperial presidency
- inherent powers
- override
- political appointees
- political order
- signing statements
- unitary executive theory
- veto power
The Bureaucracy
- bureaucratic pathologies
- civil servants
- final rule
- FOIA
- overhead democracy
- Pendleton Civil Service Act
- Principal - Agent theory
- private contractors
- proposed rule
- regulatory capture
- spoils system
- street level bureaucrat
- universalistic policies
- whistleblower
The Judicial Branch
- amicus curiae
- circuit courts
- civil law
- clear and present danger
- common law
- concurrent opinion
- criminal law
- defendant
- dissent
- district courts
- judicial activism
- judicial restraint
- judicial review
- litigation
- Lochner Era
- majority opinion
- mediation
- plaintiff
- precedence
- rule of four
- stare decisis
- strict scrutiny
Wednesday, June 21, 2023
Some academic research on why people accept misinformation - or why some people just don't care if information is true or not
From Nature: Accuracy and social motivations shape judgements of (mis)information.
The extent to which belief in (mis)information reflects lack of knowledge versus a lack of motivation to be accurate is unclear. Here, across four experiments (n = 3,364), we motivated US participants to be accurate by providing financial incentives for correct responses about the veracity of true and false political news headlines. Financial incentives improved accuracy and reduced partisan bias in judgements of headlines by about 30%, primarily by increasing the perceived accuracy of true news from the opposing party (d = 0.47). Incentivizing people to identify news that would be liked by their political allies, however, decreased accuracy. Replicating prior work, conservatives were less accurate at discerning true from false headlines than liberals, yet incentives closed the gap in accuracy between conservatives and liberals by 52%. A non-financial accuracy motivation intervention was also effective, suggesting that motivation-based interventions are scalable. Altogether, these results suggest that a substantial portion of people’s judgements of the accuracy of news reflects motivational factors.
Partisans are more likely to entrench their beliefs in misinformation when political outgroup members fact-check claims.
The spread of misinformation has become a global issue with potentially dire consequences. There has been debate over whether misinformation corrections (or "fact-checks") sometimes "backfire," causing people to become more entrenched in misinformation. While recent studies suggest that an overall "backfire effect" is uncommon, we found that fact-checks were more likely to backfire when they came from a political outgroup member across three experiments (N = 1,217). We found that corrections reduced belief in misinformation; however, the effect of partisan congruence on belief was 5x more powerful than the effect of corrections. Moreover, corrections from political outgroup members were 52% more likely to backfire–leaving people with more entrenched beliefs in misinformation. In sum, corrections are effective on average, but have small effects compared to partisan identity congruence, and sometimes backfire--especially if they come from a political outgroup member. This suggests that partisan identity may drive irrational belief updating.
For more: Confirmation Bias:
the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.[1] People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias cannot be eliminated, but it can be managed, for example, by education and training in critical thinking skills.
Links 6/21/2023
- The NAEP 2023 Long-Term Trend Age 13 Highlights Report is here!
- Senate Judiciary Committee Promises Supreme Court Ethics Hearing.
- Amazon ‘tricked’ customers into paying for Prime, new FTC suit alleges.
- Regulators are zeroing in how ‘dark patterns’ can trick users.
- Exclusive: OpenAI Lobbied the E.U. to Water Down AI Regulation.
- OpenAI’s CEO Goes on a Diplomatic Charm Offensive.
- Schumer says lawmakers ‘starting from scratch’ on AI regulation.
- Schumer launches ‘all hands on deck’ push to regulate AI in keynote address.
- Ogallala Aquifer.
- Texas Supreme Court.
- Most HISD schools targeted for reforms are well-performing, minority campuses, data shows.
- Texas’ pick to lead Houston’s schools used aggressive, polarizing methods in Dallas.
- HB 8.
Tuesday, June 20, 2023
Information, Disinformation, and Misinformation
For previous posts on information, click here.
Terminology and Definitions
- Information: Information is an abstract concept that refers to that which has the power to inform. At the most fundamental level, information pertains to the interpretation (perhaps formally) of that which may be sensed, or their abstractions. Any natural process that is not completely random and any observable pattern in any medium can be said to convey some amount of information. Whereas digital signals and other data use discrete signs to convey information, other phenomena and artefacts such as analogue signals, poems, pictures, music or other sounds, and currents convey information in a more continuous form. Information is not knowledge itself, but the meaning that may be derived from a representation through interpretation.
- Disinformation: . . . false information deliberately spread to deceive people. . . . Disinformation has been defined as "an adversarial campaign that weaponizes multiple rhetorical strategies and forms of knowing—including not only falsehoods but also truths, half-truths, and value-laden judgments—to exploit and amplify identity-driven controversies.
- Information Literacy.
- - "set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective discovery of information, the understanding of how information is produced and valued and the use of information in creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning"
- - "to be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate and use effectively the needed information"
- - "Information literacy empowers people in all walks of life to seek, evaluate, use and create information effectively to achieve their personal, social, occupational and educational goals. It is a basic human right in a digital world and promotes social inclusion in all nations."
- - "techniques and skills" learned by the information literate "for utilizing the wide range of information tools as well as primary sources in molding information solutions to their problems" and drew a relatively firm line between the "literates" and "information illiterates."
- - “Knowledge is of two kinds: We know a topic for ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it”. – Dr. Samuel Johnson 1775
- - “To know where you can find anything that in short is the largest part of learning”. - Anonymous
- Misinformation: . . . incorrect or misleading information. It differs from disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive and propagated information. Rumors are information not attributed to any particular source, and so are unreliable and often unverified, but can turn out to be either true or false. However, definitions of the terms might vary between cultural contexts. Even if later retracted, misinformation can continue to influence actions and memory. People may be more prone to believe misinformation because they are emotionally connected to what they are listening to or are reading. The role of social media has made information readily available to society at anytime, and it connects vast groups of people along with their information at one time. Advances in technology has impacted the way people communicate information and the way misinformation is spread. Misinformation has impacts on societies' ability to receive information which then influences our communities, politics, and medical field.
- Fact-checking: . . . the process of verifying the factual accuracy of questioned reporting and statements. Fact-checking can be conducted before (ante hoc) or after (post hoc) the text or content is published or otherwise disseminated. Internal fact-checking is such checking done in-house by the publisher to prevent inaccurate content from being published; when the text is analyzed by a third party, the process is called external fact-checking.
Research suggests that fact-checking can indeed correct perceptions among citizens, as well as discourage politicians from spreading false or misleading claims. However, corrections may decay over time or be overwhelmed by cues from elites who promote less accurate claims. Political fact-checking is sometimes criticized as being opinion journalism. A review of US politics fact-checkers shows a mixed result of whether fact-checking is an effective way to reduce misconceptions, and whether the method is reliable.
The Separation of Powers
From the NCSL: Separation of Powers: An Overview.
The term "trias politica" or "separation of powers" was coined by Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, an 18th century French social and political philosopher. His publication, Spirit of the Laws , is considered one of the great works in the history of political theory and jurisprudence, and it inspired the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Constitution of the United States. Under his model, the political authority of the state is divided into legislative, executive and judicial powers. He asserted that, to most effectively promote liberty, these three powers must be separate and acting independently.
Separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.
The traditional characterizations of the powers of the branches of American government are:
The legislative branch is responsible for enacting the laws of the state and appropriating the money necessary to operate the government.
The executive branch is responsible for implementing and administering the public policy enacted and funded by the legislative branch.
The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their interpretations to controversies brought before it.
Forty state constitutions specify that government be divided into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. California illustrates this approach; "The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution."
While separation of powers is key to the workings of American government, no democratic system exists with an absolute separation of powers or an absolute lack of separation of powers. Governmental powers and responsibilities intentionally overlap; they are too complex and interrelated to be neatly compartmentalized. As a result, there is an inherent measure of competition and conflict among the branches of government. Throughout American history, there also has been an ebb and flow of preeminence among the governmental branches. Such experiences suggest that where power resides is part of an evolutionary process.
From the United States Courts: Separation of Powers in Action - U.S. v. Alvarez.
U.S. v. Alvarez is an excellent example of how the three branches each exercise their authority.
In a Nutshell
The Legislative Branch – Congress – passed the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, punishing those who misrepresent that they have received high military honors.
The Judicial Branch – the Supreme Court of the United States – ruled in 2012(link is external) that the Act was unconstitutional because it infringed on the right to free speech protected by the First Amendment.
The Executive Branch – the Pentagon and the President – took action within a month of the Supreme Court's decision establishing a government-funded national database of medal citations – phased in over time – to enable verification of military honors.
The Legislative Branch – Less than a year after Alvarez was decided, Congress responded with legislation that sought to remedy the constitutional problems in the 2005 legislation, which the Supreme Court decided in U.S. v. Alvarez were in violation of the First Amendment.
The new legislation continues the prohibition on false claims of military honors in instances outside the protection of the First Amendment. However, the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 narrowed the original legislation in the following ways:Repealed the prohibition against wearing such awards without legal authorization.
Limited the prohibition to wearers who act "fraudulently" and "with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit."
Limited the prohibition to the Congressional Medal of Honor and certain, specified decorations or medals.
From the Iowa Legislature:
Separation of powers doctrine is based on the notion that each branch of government has its own unique set of powers and that these powers are exclusive and not to be exercised by another branch of government.4 This characterization is not completely mechanistic and the Iowa Supreme Court has recognized that the lines of demarcation between the branches of government are not always so clearly drawn and that the concept of separation of powers must be viewed with a certain amount of pragmatism and cooperation. In fact, the Iowa Supreme Court has noted that some functions of government can be properly entrusted to more than one branch and some functions inevitably intersect, making “harmonious cooperation” among the three branches of government fundamental to the operation of government. Still, traditional separation of powers doctrine provides that a violation occurs if a branch of government purports to use powers not granted to it by the Constitution or usurps powers granted by it to another branch. Important in separation of powers analysis is an understanding of the nature of the powers of each separate branch of government.
The traditional characterization of these powers is that the legislative power is the power to make, alter, and repeal laws; the executive power is the power to execute the laws; and the judicial power is the power to construe and interpret the Constitution and laws, and to apply them and decide controversies.
Monday, June 19, 2023
The Governing Institutions
The American system of separated powers has three broad types of governing institutions:
- The Legislative Power.
- The Executive Power.
- The Judicial Power.
Each corresponds to one of the three things that governments do: make laws, implement laws, and adjudicate disputes about the laws.
The constitutions of the United States and Texas each vests these powers in separate institutions in order to make the consolidation of power difficult. Each institution is also give the ability to resist efforts by the other two to usurp its powers.
Here is more specific information about each:
- The Legislature: an assembly with the authority to make laws for a political entity such as a country or city. . . . legislatures may observe and steer governing actions, with authority to amend the budget involved.
- The Executive: the term commonly used to describe that part of government which enforces the law, and has overall responsibility for the governance of a state.
- The Judiciary: the system of courts that adjudicates legal disputes/disagreements and interprets, defends, and applies the law in legal cases.
The United States Constitution:
- Article 1: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
- Article 2: The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold office during the term of four years
- Article 3: The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish.
The Texas States Constitution:
- Article 3: The Legislative power of this State shall be vested in a Senate and House of Representatives, which together shall be styled "The Legislature of the State of Texas."
- Article 4: The Executive Department of the State shall consist of a Governor, who shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the State, a Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Comptroller of Public Accounts, Commissioner of the General Land Office, and Attorney General.
- Article 5: The judicial power of this State shall be vested in one Supreme Court, in one Court of Criminal Appeals, in Courts of Appeals, in District Courts, in County Courts, in Commissioners Courts, in Courts of Justices of the Peace, and in such other courts as may be provided by law
Texas Statutory Code:
- Texas Statutes: Government Code.Governing institutions on the local are either designed or authorized by the state.
- Texas Constitution Article 9: Counties.
- Texas Constitution Article 11: Municipal Corporations.
- Texas Statutes: Local Government Code.
The Political Institutions
These are the institutions that attempt to influence which of the various interests in society will be passed into law. In other words, whose interests will be served and whose will not?
They do so, primarily, by being involved in - and winning - elections. This involves any of the following, at least:
- forming an organization comprised of individuals united around a set of shared interests.
- communicate those issues and related information to the public.
- recruiting and supporting candidates committed to those issues.
- getting them elected or appointed to the governing institutions.
- ideally, elect or have appointed enough others in each governing institution.
- organize those institutions internally to benefit your interests
There are three broad categories of political institutions:
- Political Parties.
- Interest Groups.
- The Media.
They can be defined as follows:
- Political Parties: A political party is an organization that coordinates candidates to compete in a particular country's elections. It is common for the members of a party to hold similar ideas about politics, and parties may promote specific ideological or policy goals.
- Interest Groups: Advocacy groups, also known as interest groups, special interest groups, lobbying groups, pressure groups, or public associations use various forms of advocacy in order to influence public opinion and ultimately policy. They play an important role in the development of political and social systems.
- The Media: the communication outlets or tools used to store and deliver information or data. The term refers to components of the mass media communications industry, such as print media, publishing, the news media, photography, cinema, broadcasting (radio and television), digital media, and advertising.
Fundamental, Political Liberties:
These institutions exist freely - with certain limits as discussed in the section on civil liberties - because they are defined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as Sections 8 and 27 of the Texas Bill of Rights.
The right of each to exist and act is considered fundamental, and can be restricted only if there is a compelling public need to do so. Any attempt to limit these freedoms is subject to strict scrutiny.
A History of Electric Power in Texas.
Sources:
- Connecting Past and Future: A History of Texas’ Isolated Power Grid.
- The history of ERCOT: How Texas became the only state with its own power grid.
Timeline:
1800s: Ice Plants.
1851: mechanical refrigeration machines
1882: Dallas Electric Lighting Company.
1882: Houston Lighting and Power.
1920: Federal Power Act.
1924: Texas Power & Light Company (now TXU) built the first true interconnection in the state.
1926: Houston Lighting and Power started building interconnections to sell excess power.
1930: Federal Power Commission.
1935: Public Utility Holding Company Act.
1941: Texas Interconnected System.
1941: Southwest Power Pool.
1964: National Power Survey.
1965: national power outage
1970: Electric Reliability Council of Texas.
1975: Public Utility Regulatory Act.
1975: Public Utility Commission of Texas.
1976: The Midnight Connection.
1977: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
1992: Energy Policy Act of 1992.
2002: Electricity Deregulation in Texas.
2002: Houston Lighting and Power splits in 3.
- - Reliant Energy took over the sales of electricity to businesses and individuals.
- - Texas Genco assumed control of the area's power plants.
- - CenterPoint Energy assumed control of the poles and power lines.
- Connecting Past and Future: A History of Texas’ Isolated Power Grid.
- The history of ERCOT: How Texas became the only state with its own power grid.
Timeline:
1800s: Ice Plants.
1851: mechanical refrigeration machines
1882: Dallas Electric Lighting Company.
1882: Houston Lighting and Power.
1920: Federal Power Act.
1924: Texas Power & Light Company (now TXU) built the first true interconnection in the state.
1926: Houston Lighting and Power started building interconnections to sell excess power.
1930: Federal Power Commission.
1935: Public Utility Holding Company Act.
1941: Texas Interconnected System.
1941: Southwest Power Pool.
1964: National Power Survey.
1965: national power outage
1970: Electric Reliability Council of Texas.
1975: Public Utility Regulatory Act.
1975: Public Utility Commission of Texas.
1976: The Midnight Connection.
1977: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
1992: Energy Policy Act of 1992.
2002: Electricity Deregulation in Texas.
2002: Houston Lighting and Power splits in 3.
- - Reliant Energy took over the sales of electricity to businesses and individuals.
- - Texas Genco assumed control of the area's power plants.
- - CenterPoint Energy assumed control of the poles and power lines.
Sunday, June 18, 2023
The first commercial electric generator: The Pearl Street Station
Background for our look at the Texas power grid:
- Pearl Street Station.
- The Pearl Street Generating Station, 1882
Saturday, June 17, 2023
Friday, June 16, 2023
Thursday, June 15, 2023
- Supreme Court Upholds Native American Adoption Law.
- Texas Right to Farming, Ranching, Timber Production, Horticulture, and Wildlife Management Amendment (2023)
- Dormant Commerce Clause.
- U.S. Code: Title 8.
- Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
- 88th Texas Legislature: TDLR Related Bills.
- Woori Juntos.
- Harris County Hospital District.
- USCIS: Asylum.
- Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Wednesday, June 14, 2023
Beyhive
- The singer Beyoncé's online fanbase.
- Beyhive is a term for passionate and dedicated fans of musical artist Beyoncé. The term comes from the star's nickname, Queen Bey, and "beehive", which represents the fervor of her fans and willingness to go after her critics.
The term grew in popularity after Beyoncé broke off from her group "Destiny's Child" and embarked on a mega-successful solo career. The beyhive is willing to go after anyone who questions Beyoncé, whether it be music critics, other pop stars, or ever her husband Jay-Z. The term is most often used by pop culture news networks, like E!, and on social media. The term may also appear as "Bey-Hive."
- Click here.
- I was not a BeyHive member and could not be more disappointed in myself.
The first elections to national office under the U.S. Constitution.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_drafting_and_ratification_of_the_United_States_Constitution
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Ratifying_Convention
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1788%E2%80%9389_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1788%E2%80%9389_United_States_Senate_elections
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1788%E2%80%9389_United_States_elections
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Muhlenberg
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison
From the Washington Post: ‘MAGA vs. ultra-MAGA’: Michigan’s Republican Party at war with itself
A look at internal divisions within a state party.
- Click here for the article.
The differences among Michigan Republicans reflect both style and substance. As the party prepares for a June 25 visit from the former president to suburban Detroit, the most active Republicans here broadly embrace Trump’s “America First” maxim but don’t always agree on what that phrase means. Many remain skeptical of the 2020 election results but differ on whether to continue to focus on the issue. They disparage the party’s old guard but often fight over who they consider to be part of the establishment.
The situation has led to mutual suspicion and attempts to oust one another from the party. Those efforts in turn have sparked accusations and counteraccusations that some members are trying to rig party elections.
“There’s no one in control anymore,” said GOP consultant Jason Cabel Roe.
Michigan has played an outsize role in Republican politics dating to the party’s founding nearly 170 years ago. President Gerald Ford came from Grand Rapids in western Michigan. Two of the state’s most politically powerful families, the Romneys and the DeVoses, have made an imprint on national politics for generations. Ronna McDaniel became chairwoman of the Republican National Committee after leading the Michigan party.
In 2016, Michigan voters for the first time in 28 years chose a Republican for president, helping propel Trump to a surprise victory. But since then, Republicans have been on a losing streak that has resulted in Democrats gaining full control of the statehouse for the first time in four decades.
Some longtime Republicans say the state party’s campaign troubles can be surmounted by handing more duties to the RNC or other entities. But they worry the fractures mean a segment of Republicans will lurch so far right that they will repel independent voters and make it impossible to win statewide elections.
After Trump’s victory in 2016, his ardent supporters became active in the Republican Party in Michigan and soon overtook it, said Roe, who served as the party’s executive director for part of 2021. They continue to push people out of the party whom they deem suspect, he said.
“They basically see anyone who has been there as part of the problem and a RINO,” or Republican in name only, he said. “I think there’s been a systemic effort to eradicate people that have been involved for many years, and they’re being replaced by MAGA-aligned folks that have not been involved and engaged that don’t necessarily understand how the process works.”
Jeff Timmer, a former executive director of the Michigan Republican Party, said the latest purity tests are emerging even within the “Make America Great Again” movement just as the party weighs whether to re-nominate Trump or choose someone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)