A few stories have cropped up regarding the cohesiveness of both the environmental movement and the Episcopalian Church given conflict about two emerging issues. Both speak to the factors that influence interest group strength and the degree to which the introduction of a new issue (or an old one with a nuance) can split a group and make it less strong than it otherwise might be.
The issues are, respectively, nuclear power and homosexuality. Some in the environmental movement are rethinking their traditional opposition to nuclear power in the wake of concerns over global warming. Stewart Brand who has been a member in good standing of the environmental community for decades has been labled a heretic because of his recent support for nuclear power, which does not release carbon emissions into the atmosphere.
The U.S. Episcopalian Church's acceptance of gay bishops and civil unions for gay couples has led some of it's member organizations to leave it in favor of the Anglican Communion, a world wide organization.
The strength of interest groups is often less a matter of size than of cohesion, and cohesion is often due to control over the types of issues that the group focuses upon.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Jury Duty
Monday was the third time I've had jury duty since I've run out of excuses for not having to go, and once again I didn't make it to voir dire, but I'm coming to believe that the jury system is the single most important--though misunderstood, maligned and abused--institution in the American governing system.
Where else can the random population make a decision that has an immediate impact on the greater society? Though we are trained to think of the legislative branch as being the closest to the people--because of direct elections and all--the economics of the political process makes that unlikely. A solid track record of donations, or influence on turnout betray the reality that we are not politically equal.
Not so on a jury.
The random process that drags people to jury duty smooths out all social differences. It's worth wondering whether a similar process for staffing Congress or the Texas Legislature might create an institution more in step with the preferences of the people. The closest I got to actual service I found myself with about 30 others outside a court room while a plea bargain was worked out inside. When the judge called us into the court room to explain what happened he mention that our jury pool included another state judge and a county commissioner.
Juries have been muzzled over time unfortunately. In revolutionary America jurors would nullify laws they objected to. That might get one sent to jail these days, but why? Shouldn't jury decisions be considered just another check on the powers of the legislature? Or might this give commoners too much influence?
Funny how people seem to enjoy disdaining the decisions of juries--think OJ and the rest. Considering that the typical juror has more in common with the American public than the typical legislator, judge or executive official, we might really be disdaining ourselves, which may not be a bad thing of course. We can all stand to be criticized.
I've found this website to be provocative. Perhaps we can beat this dead horse in 2302 when we start in on the judiciary.
Where else can the random population make a decision that has an immediate impact on the greater society? Though we are trained to think of the legislative branch as being the closest to the people--because of direct elections and all--the economics of the political process makes that unlikely. A solid track record of donations, or influence on turnout betray the reality that we are not politically equal.
Not so on a jury.
The random process that drags people to jury duty smooths out all social differences. It's worth wondering whether a similar process for staffing Congress or the Texas Legislature might create an institution more in step with the preferences of the people. The closest I got to actual service I found myself with about 30 others outside a court room while a plea bargain was worked out inside. When the judge called us into the court room to explain what happened he mention that our jury pool included another state judge and a county commissioner.
Juries have been muzzled over time unfortunately. In revolutionary America jurors would nullify laws they objected to. That might get one sent to jail these days, but why? Shouldn't jury decisions be considered just another check on the powers of the legislature? Or might this give commoners too much influence?
Funny how people seem to enjoy disdaining the decisions of juries--think OJ and the rest. Considering that the typical juror has more in common with the American public than the typical legislator, judge or executive official, we might really be disdaining ourselves, which may not be a bad thing of course. We can all stand to be criticized.
I've found this website to be provocative. Perhaps we can beat this dead horse in 2302 when we start in on the judiciary.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Strange Bedfellows
For some time now environmentalists in Texas (both of them) have been adamantly opposed to Gov. Perry's plan to allow TXU Energy build almost a dozen new coal plants using old technology that was going to double the amount of pollution pumped into Texas skies.
Well that's old news now since TXU is about to be purchased by two private equity groups who have brought the environmentalists, Environmental Defense, into the discussion and agreed to only build three of the plants.
Do the equity firms see the environmental angle as beneficial to the long term value of the company? Here's the scoop from ED's president. I'm unaware of any other deal struck between such an interest group and private equity firms (which I find a bit spooky, though I can't quite pin down why).
Well that's old news now since TXU is about to be purchased by two private equity groups who have brought the environmentalists, Environmental Defense, into the discussion and agreed to only build three of the plants.
Do the equity firms see the environmental angle as beneficial to the long term value of the company? Here's the scoop from ED's president. I'm unaware of any other deal struck between such an interest group and private equity firms (which I find a bit spooky, though I can't quite pin down why).
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Perry's power checked, or not?
Despite winning reelection with only 39% of the vote, the governor is steamrolling a variety of initiatives. Each however is being checked through a variety of means--legislative, judicial and political. Read up on it in today's chron.
Crisis in Italy
There is a governing crisis occuring across the globe that could not happen in the United States due to our plurality or winner take all voting rules. Italy's ruling coalition seems to have fallen apart due to a failed vote in their Senate. The Prime Minister has resigned (but may return) because the bloc of parties he cobbled together following Italy's most recent election has fallen apart. Concerns abound regardign Italy's stability.
All of this is due to the fact that Italy--as do most democracies across the world--uses proportional representation to assign its seats. People vote for parties who are then allocated seats according to the proportion of votes cast. This allows for multiple parties to run competitively (apparently 39 parties ran candidates in last year's elections) since one can cast a meaningful vote for a small party.
In the U.S this could not happen, because only the person with the most votes gets a seat--be it executive, legislative or judicial. A vote for a smaller party candidate is considered to be thrown away. The best it can do is draw support from the more prefereable of the two major candidates. The culmination of a century and a half of such elections has led to two very competitive large parties composed of coalitions of individuals that are willing to settle for second best.
It could be different, should it?
All of this is due to the fact that Italy--as do most democracies across the world--uses proportional representation to assign its seats. People vote for parties who are then allocated seats according to the proportion of votes cast. This allows for multiple parties to run competitively (apparently 39 parties ran candidates in last year's elections) since one can cast a meaningful vote for a small party.
In the U.S this could not happen, because only the person with the most votes gets a seat--be it executive, legislative or judicial. A vote for a smaller party candidate is considered to be thrown away. The best it can do is draw support from the more prefereable of the two major candidates. The culmination of a century and a half of such elections has led to two very competitive large parties composed of coalitions of individuals that are willing to settle for second best.
It could be different, should it?
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The Political Economy of Sponge Bob Square Pants
Thus Spake Plankton:
"Now get up there and show him how the common man prepares his frozen dairy treats."
-spoken as he orders Patrick to dive into a vat of chocolate.
You SpongeBob fans know that Patrick is competing against SpongeBob to win the fry cook games in Bikini Bottom. SpongeBob has just completed a jump into the vat of chocolate but then jumped into a bowl of chopped almonds. Plankton, though he respects the choice, calls it too high brow for the crowd.
Like any tyrant worth his salt, he sees his support coming from the mass public. The elites are a threat to his ambition. He knows that if he can turn the people away from SpongeBob by having Patrick prepare a desert more to their liking, his dream of turning Bikini Bottom into Planktopolis which he could then rule by force of will could become a reality.
Genius.
"Now get up there and show him how the common man prepares his frozen dairy treats."
-spoken as he orders Patrick to dive into a vat of chocolate.
You SpongeBob fans know that Patrick is competing against SpongeBob to win the fry cook games in Bikini Bottom. SpongeBob has just completed a jump into the vat of chocolate but then jumped into a bowl of chopped almonds. Plankton, though he respects the choice, calls it too high brow for the crowd.
Like any tyrant worth his salt, he sees his support coming from the mass public. The elites are a threat to his ambition. He knows that if he can turn the people away from SpongeBob by having Patrick prepare a desert more to their liking, his dream of turning Bikini Bottom into Planktopolis which he could then rule by force of will could become a reality.
Genius.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
This is Why you Dont Want Camera in the Court Room
The world has a new media sensation--as if we needed one--and his name is Larry Seidlin, Judge Larry Seidlin. He's presiding over the hearings underway in Florida that will determine where Anna Nicole Smith will be buried, and he is making the most of it.
Apparently he's using these hearings as an opportunity to audition for his own "Judge Judy" type TV show.
This may be one of the reasons Justice Kennedy argued against cameras in the Supreme Court. Even if they dont turn one into a glazed ham, they will affect the way you act, even subtly.
Apparently he's using these hearings as an opportunity to audition for his own "Judge Judy" type TV show.
This may be one of the reasons Justice Kennedy argued against cameras in the Supreme Court. Even if they dont turn one into a glazed ham, they will affect the way you act, even subtly.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Hell Freezes Over
In what has to bad news for Anti-Hillary Conservatives, the New York Times reports today (link may not work) that Richard Mellon Scaife, the person who underwrote the investigations against the Clintons in the 90s is not likely to do the same before the 2008 elections.
The reason? Here's the shocker, but this comes from a former assistant to Mr. Scaife: "Clinton wasn't such a bad president. In fact he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways and Dick (Mr. Scaife) feels the same way."
That's not way to run a movement. What may be worse, Rupert Murdoch aka. Mr Fox News, seems to have warmed up to her also.
Others seem poised to step into the breach though, including Paul Weyrich a "founding father of the modern conservative movement. They still see potential in taking her on. The story points out the importance to conservative fundraisers of anti-Hillary strategies. "The Helen of Troy of direct mail," says one. "The face who can launch a thousand donations."
The question seems to be whether people have tired enough of the Clinton bashing to where it doesn't work anymore. Of course it could also mean that the lull has meant that people might be prone to revisit these controversies with a fresh eye.
Regardless, if she becomes the nominee we'll see whether this still matters.
You might want to purchase a good raincoat.
The reason? Here's the shocker, but this comes from a former assistant to Mr. Scaife: "Clinton wasn't such a bad president. In fact he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways and Dick (Mr. Scaife) feels the same way."
That's not way to run a movement. What may be worse, Rupert Murdoch aka. Mr Fox News, seems to have warmed up to her also.
Others seem poised to step into the breach though, including Paul Weyrich a "founding father of the modern conservative movement. They still see potential in taking her on. The story points out the importance to conservative fundraisers of anti-Hillary strategies. "The Helen of Troy of direct mail," says one. "The face who can launch a thousand donations."
The question seems to be whether people have tired enough of the Clinton bashing to where it doesn't work anymore. Of course it could also mean that the lull has meant that people might be prone to revisit these controversies with a fresh eye.
Regardless, if she becomes the nominee we'll see whether this still matters.
You might want to purchase a good raincoat.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Just one little word...
Another controversy has surfaced surrounding a peculiar word in a place where children might hear it. Librarians are lining up on either side of the issue, as are civil libertarians.
The book is a recent prize winner titled The Higher Power of Lucky.
Are people being too protective of children, or is the book continued evidence of the apocalypse?
The book is a recent prize winner titled The Higher Power of Lucky.
Are people being too protective of children, or is the book continued evidence of the apocalypse?
Copernicus v. Texas
The blogs are all a twitter on the distribution of an odd memo by Warren Chisum, the chair of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, probably the most powerful of all the committees.
The memo says quite a bit, but perhaps the most novel claim is that the idea that the earth revolves around the sun is wrong. To say so is to discredit religion positions on the subject, which is just what got Galileo house arrest at the end of his life. It also claims, and I've heard this elsewhere, that since science makes claims that touch on religious doctrine, it can be treated as a religion and tax payer funding of it can be cut since it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment
Chisum is apologizing for the memo now, because it contains anti-semitic language, but a couple of points ought to be raised.
First, is this a wise move on the part of the creationist movement? It is clear that these individuals are part of the creationist movement as well and see the heliocentric model of the universe as the base upon which evolution and other challenges to religious doctrine rests. Evolution rests on the interpretation of existing matter and attempts to work backward and determine how we got to where we are. I can see how one can question this since you can't "see" the process, but one can see the motion of stars and planets and the earth and determine in a more substantive manner how they move in relationship to each other. Is this a fight they really want to take on? Will they end up losing credibility from some of its supporters? Does the movement then risk losing viability as a political force?
Second, could this controversy be useful since it reminds people why scientific principles hold what they hold? I'm no astronomer, so I could not walk you through the helio and geocentric models of the cosmos, but I'm now curious about it because the issue has been raised, In 2301 we would have briefly discussed John Stuart Mill's ideas in On Liberty. Mill argues that one must understand what thier beliefs rest upon, and if a challenge to one's beliefs forces a re-examination, that's fine.
What do you think?
The memo says quite a bit, but perhaps the most novel claim is that the idea that the earth revolves around the sun is wrong. To say so is to discredit religion positions on the subject, which is just what got Galileo house arrest at the end of his life. It also claims, and I've heard this elsewhere, that since science makes claims that touch on religious doctrine, it can be treated as a religion and tax payer funding of it can be cut since it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment
Chisum is apologizing for the memo now, because it contains anti-semitic language, but a couple of points ought to be raised.
First, is this a wise move on the part of the creationist movement? It is clear that these individuals are part of the creationist movement as well and see the heliocentric model of the universe as the base upon which evolution and other challenges to religious doctrine rests. Evolution rests on the interpretation of existing matter and attempts to work backward and determine how we got to where we are. I can see how one can question this since you can't "see" the process, but one can see the motion of stars and planets and the earth and determine in a more substantive manner how they move in relationship to each other. Is this a fight they really want to take on? Will they end up losing credibility from some of its supporters? Does the movement then risk losing viability as a political force?
Second, could this controversy be useful since it reminds people why scientific principles hold what they hold? I'm no astronomer, so I could not walk you through the helio and geocentric models of the cosmos, but I'm now curious about it because the issue has been raised, In 2301 we would have briefly discussed John Stuart Mill's ideas in On Liberty. Mill argues that one must understand what thier beliefs rest upon, and if a challenge to one's beliefs forces a re-examination, that's fine.
What do you think?
Saturday, February 17, 2007
House yes, Senate . . . who knows?
I promise a full outline of the processes underlying the non-binding resolutions against the surge in Iraq in the near future, but for now consider it to be a great illustration of the intent of the Constitution's framers.
The House very neatly dispatched the resolution, reflecting the will of the electorate of 2006. The Senate is still resisting the resolution, but this may be because--as we know--only one third faced the electorate in 2006. The others are there to express the will of the electorate of 2004 or 2002.
In case you want to sound smart the next time someone complains about Congress not being able to reflect the will of the people, you might want to bring this up.
You don't have to mention me.
The House very neatly dispatched the resolution, reflecting the will of the electorate of 2006. The Senate is still resisting the resolution, but this may be because--as we know--only one third faced the electorate in 2006. The others are there to express the will of the electorate of 2004 or 2002.
In case you want to sound smart the next time someone complains about Congress not being able to reflect the will of the people, you might want to bring this up.
You don't have to mention me.
Now it's Italy
Days ago a German court issued charges against American officials for the "extraordinary rendition" of a German citizen, now an Italian court has done the same thing in a case involving an Egyptian on Italian soil.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
hmmmmm
I'll admit it. Sometimes I google myself to see what I find. Usually nothing much.
But I googled this website's title "If men were angles" just to see if this blog would pop up, and it did. It was #51. Why is this so weird? Because the phrase comes from Federalist #51 of course.
I'm in the Twilight Zone I know it.
And yes, google is a verb if you want it to be.
But I googled this website's title "If men were angles" just to see if this blog would pop up, and it did. It was #51. Why is this so weird? Because the phrase comes from Federalist #51 of course.
I'm in the Twilight Zone I know it.
And yes, google is a verb if you want it to be.
The House, the Senate and the Surge
I've been remiss in not touching on the non-binding resolutions against sending additional troops to Iraq now in the House.
If we recall--since we in 2302 are now experts on House v Senate floor procedures--House rules allow for more control by the majority party which means that the Democratic leadership is in a better position to pass a non-binding resolution than are their compatriots in the Senate. 40 votes in the Senate is all that's needed to ensure that nothing goes forward that the minority wants to go forward.
Not so in the House.
When the dust settles we'll look backward and determine how the process evolved.
If we recall--since we in 2302 are now experts on House v Senate floor procedures--House rules allow for more control by the majority party which means that the Democratic leadership is in a better position to pass a non-binding resolution than are their compatriots in the Senate. 40 votes in the Senate is all that's needed to ensure that nothing goes forward that the minority wants to go forward.
Not so in the House.
When the dust settles we'll look backward and determine how the process evolved.
HPV Backlash?
We are about to find out just how much power the Texas Governor in fact has.
The House Public Health Committee is set to hold hearings on a bill that will overturn Perry's executive order mandating that all Texas girls be immunized for the virus (my wife pointed out that boys--who presumably would be infecting the girls--are not being immunized when they probably should be, but that's another story). Here's the story from the Chron.
In addition, concerns are being raised about the costs of the procedure, which may or may not be covered by insurance.
Has Perry overplayed his hand? Remember that he only won the election with 39% of the vote. Does he have something up his sleeve?
-An aside from my previous post on this subject. I mentioned that an Austin lawyer claimed that the governor has no power to issue executive orders because it is not in the Constitution, but then I remembered that no such power exists in the U.S. Constitution for the president, but he still issues them, and they seem to be accepted. I believe in that case it fall under a broad definition of the president's executive powers. But considering that the state executive is plural, and executive power is disbursed among a variety of individuals elected separately, perhaps this logic does not apply.
The House Public Health Committee is set to hold hearings on a bill that will overturn Perry's executive order mandating that all Texas girls be immunized for the virus (my wife pointed out that boys--who presumably would be infecting the girls--are not being immunized when they probably should be, but that's another story). Here's the story from the Chron.
In addition, concerns are being raised about the costs of the procedure, which may or may not be covered by insurance.
Has Perry overplayed his hand? Remember that he only won the election with 39% of the vote. Does he have something up his sleeve?
-An aside from my previous post on this subject. I mentioned that an Austin lawyer claimed that the governor has no power to issue executive orders because it is not in the Constitution, but then I remembered that no such power exists in the U.S. Constitution for the president, but he still issues them, and they seem to be accepted. I believe in that case it fall under a broad definition of the president's executive powers. But considering that the state executive is plural, and executive power is disbursed among a variety of individuals elected separately, perhaps this logic does not apply.
Cameras in the Supreme Court?
The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings yesterday (2/14/07) on "Judicial Security and Independence."
In the question and answer period, Justice Anthony Kennedy was asked by committee ranking member Arlen Specter about his position on cameras in the courtroom (he has introduced a bill to that effect).
Kennedy argued against them. Which raises an interesting question about the impact of the media on institutional deliberation. Does secrecy (or at least a degree of insulation) facilitate a higher level of deliberation than we would otherwise expect? Or do the demands of tranparency--a key component of democracy--require that all governmental deliberations that do not compromise security interests be completely public, and even broadcast.
In the question and answer period, Justice Anthony Kennedy was asked by committee ranking member Arlen Specter about his position on cameras in the courtroom (he has introduced a bill to that effect).
Kennedy argued against them. Which raises an interesting question about the impact of the media on institutional deliberation. Does secrecy (or at least a degree of insulation) facilitate a higher level of deliberation than we would otherwise expect? Or do the demands of tranparency--a key component of democracy--require that all governmental deliberations that do not compromise security interests be completely public, and even broadcast.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Texas in February
Texas seems determined to join California and a handful of other states in moving its 2008 presidential primary up to February 5th.
If it happens, the primary season would be short and far less interesting than it has been in the past. And the campaign for the general election will be almost 10 months long.
Oh brother.
If it happens, the primary season would be short and far less interesting than it has been in the past. And the campaign for the general election will be almost 10 months long.
Oh brother.
Rudy?
A week after top Republicans were ready to concede defeat to Hillary, some now argue that Rudy Giuliani is the man to beat.
The obvious question--and we need to discuss this in 2301 at the least--is whether he can win the primary. He is pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Some factions in the Republican coalition are strongly opposed to both. John McCain is trying to reposition himself on those issues so he can sell himself to the social conservatives, but Guiliani doesn't seem to be trying.
Is this a winning strategy?
Will they respect him for his honesty if not his policy positions?
Regardless, this poll is very disheartening for someone likes me who would like to see an open shootout among candidates in each party. Rudy and Hillary each have 40% support from identifiers in their respective parties.
Let's hope this thing isn't over before it starts.
The obvious question--and we need to discuss this in 2301 at the least--is whether he can win the primary. He is pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Some factions in the Republican coalition are strongly opposed to both. John McCain is trying to reposition himself on those issues so he can sell himself to the social conservatives, but Guiliani doesn't seem to be trying.
Is this a winning strategy?
Will they respect him for his honesty if not his policy positions?
Regardless, this poll is very disheartening for someone likes me who would like to see an open shootout among candidates in each party. Rudy and Hillary each have 40% support from identifiers in their respective parties.
Let's hope this thing isn't over before it starts.
24
Many in the blogging community (and today CNN) wonder if there is a connection between watching the television show 24 and support for torture.
This is a novel way to determine if the media has an impact on a person's thought process. Even though some military officials raise questions about the efficacy of torture, and whether it is in fact a good way to get critical information from reluctant detainees, viewers of the drama seem to argue that it is. The ticking bomb scenario gets played out repeatedly and is used to justify ohysical and mental torture, but there are questions about the number of time a detainee is subject to questions involving that scenario.
The more one watches the show, the more one sees the world through the lens of its characters.
Are viewers substituting reality for fiction?
Why is this show on the air anyway?
This is a novel way to determine if the media has an impact on a person's thought process. Even though some military officials raise questions about the efficacy of torture, and whether it is in fact a good way to get critical information from reluctant detainees, viewers of the drama seem to argue that it is. The ticking bomb scenario gets played out repeatedly and is used to justify ohysical and mental torture, but there are questions about the number of time a detainee is subject to questions involving that scenario.
The more one watches the show, the more one sees the world through the lens of its characters.
Are viewers substituting reality for fiction?
Why is this show on the air anyway?
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
President Hillary?
The presidential election is still a year and 9 month away and already some Republicans are preparing for what they see as an inevitable victory by Hillary Clinton.
Are they sincere or is this a tactic of some kind?
Are they sincere or is this a tactic of some kind?
Oh Blackwater...
More oversight hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives, this time the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is investigating the use of private contractors, such as Blackwater USA for security in Iraq.
If you recall, the four men who were basically butchered in Fallujah a couple of years back and hung on a bridge were Blackwater employees. Their widows testified against the company. How does one counter them without seeming heartless?
In case you were wondering why control of Congress was so important, here's your answer. Three oversight hearings that I'm aware of and the session is only a month old.
If you recall, the four men who were basically butchered in Fallujah a couple of years back and hung on a bridge were Blackwater employees. Their widows testified against the company. How does one counter them without seeming heartless?
In case you were wondering why control of Congress was so important, here's your answer. Three oversight hearings that I'm aware of and the session is only a month old.
VP Perry?
A nice posting by Larry:
I was wondering when this was going to pop up on the blog. Not being a constitutional expert myself, this sure seems akin to the Youngstown v Sawyer case that our class should be familiar with at this point. Governor Zoolander seems hellbent to put himself on the 2008 radar in hopes of getting a VP tattoo on his ankle. And in typical Perry fashion, such a fine way to go about it.
To address the first thought, in my brief Googling and internet research, I can't seem to find anywhere that directly or indirectly gives or implies the Governor the power to implement such a sweeping mandate.
Secondly, this is a classic case of irony. Someone who champions family values, abstinence, no sex before marriage, etc. is mandating that school girls be vaccindated against a virus that is primarily spread through sexual contact. Would this go right alongside handing out condoms in schools? You sure won't find Dick advocating that strategy anytime soon.
Another thought to ponder is how much of a "mandate" this really is. From my understanding, it is mandatory unless a parent chooses to opt out for religious or PERSONAL reasons. That sure doesn't sound like it takes much for a parent to circumvent this should they so choose.
Third... the possibility of Merck lining the pockets of Gov. Perry, in my estimation, is next to nothing. While Perry can't seem to make up his mind on the border or find productive ways to enact his utilitarian philosophy on the minions, he hasn't shown himself to be a graduate of the Tom DeLay School of Politics, at least so far as this is concerned.
For a fleeting moment I had a thought that he might backtrack on this issue during his State of the State address, and that was quickly put to rest when he spoke out in staunch support of his brilliant idea. I think the big fuss is made by members of the Texas legislature not because they think it is a bad idea... after all, any parent has the right to opt out for virtually any reason they choose. I think the fuss has been made because Perry wasn't playing nicely with the other kids on the playground. He went over the heads of lawmakers and didn't allow them their God-given right in the law-making process and it ticked 'em off. So Nelson goes on the offensive and now the media gets ahold of this here story.
While the intentions surely are good, the execution is poor and transparent. Perry should have fired his legal counsel and PR firms yesterday if anyone thinks this is a good idea to up his opinion polls and get him on the radar screen for 2008's VP fun run.
Your thoughts?
I was wondering when this was going to pop up on the blog. Not being a constitutional expert myself, this sure seems akin to the Youngstown v Sawyer case that our class should be familiar with at this point. Governor Zoolander seems hellbent to put himself on the 2008 radar in hopes of getting a VP tattoo on his ankle. And in typical Perry fashion, such a fine way to go about it.
To address the first thought, in my brief Googling and internet research, I can't seem to find anywhere that directly or indirectly gives or implies the Governor the power to implement such a sweeping mandate.
Secondly, this is a classic case of irony. Someone who champions family values, abstinence, no sex before marriage, etc. is mandating that school girls be vaccindated against a virus that is primarily spread through sexual contact. Would this go right alongside handing out condoms in schools? You sure won't find Dick advocating that strategy anytime soon.
Another thought to ponder is how much of a "mandate" this really is. From my understanding, it is mandatory unless a parent chooses to opt out for religious or PERSONAL reasons. That sure doesn't sound like it takes much for a parent to circumvent this should they so choose.
Third... the possibility of Merck lining the pockets of Gov. Perry, in my estimation, is next to nothing. While Perry can't seem to make up his mind on the border or find productive ways to enact his utilitarian philosophy on the minions, he hasn't shown himself to be a graduate of the Tom DeLay School of Politics, at least so far as this is concerned.
For a fleeting moment I had a thought that he might backtrack on this issue during his State of the State address, and that was quickly put to rest when he spoke out in staunch support of his brilliant idea. I think the big fuss is made by members of the Texas legislature not because they think it is a bad idea... after all, any parent has the right to opt out for virtually any reason they choose. I think the fuss has been made because Perry wasn't playing nicely with the other kids on the playground. He went over the heads of lawmakers and didn't allow them their God-given right in the law-making process and it ticked 'em off. So Nelson goes on the offensive and now the media gets ahold of this here story.
While the intentions surely are good, the execution is poor and transparent. Perry should have fired his legal counsel and PR firms yesterday if anyone thinks this is a good idea to up his opinion polls and get him on the radar screen for 2008's VP fun run.
Your thoughts?
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Illegal immunization?
There's much to mull over regarding Gov. Perry's executive order requiring 6th grade girls in Texas to be immunized for the human papilloma virus.
1--Is there such a thing as an executive order for the Texas Governor? Austin lawyer Buck Wood, who represents school district across the state says that he does not and any directive to executive agencies is only a "wish."
2--Is this going to go over well with people who (1) dont want government meddling in their personal family decisions--the libertarians--and (2) get wigged out over the fact that it touches on the consequencs of sexual activity among the underaged--will we hear from the abstinence only crowd soon?
3--Could this be a favor to the pharmaceutical industry? It's worth investigating whether the governor received money form them. Apparently they stand to receive a sizable windfall, all from the pockets of Texas families.
and 4--The craziest possibility of all--Could this be good public policy? Are the benefits in lives saved worth the imposition? And could this have only been implemented by an executive order? At least one legislative supporter apparently thinks so and is glad that the leg has been bypassed.
I foresee a political backlash the Governor will simply ignore. The question will be whether this will negativelt affect anything else that is likely to happen.
1--Is there such a thing as an executive order for the Texas Governor? Austin lawyer Buck Wood, who represents school district across the state says that he does not and any directive to executive agencies is only a "wish."
2--Is this going to go over well with people who (1) dont want government meddling in their personal family decisions--the libertarians--and (2) get wigged out over the fact that it touches on the consequencs of sexual activity among the underaged--will we hear from the abstinence only crowd soon?
3--Could this be a favor to the pharmaceutical industry? It's worth investigating whether the governor received money form them. Apparently they stand to receive a sizable windfall, all from the pockets of Texas families.
and 4--The craziest possibility of all--Could this be good public policy? Are the benefits in lives saved worth the imposition? And could this have only been implemented by an executive order? At least one legislative supporter apparently thinks so and is glad that the leg has been bypassed.
I foresee a political backlash the Governor will simply ignore. The question will be whether this will negativelt affect anything else that is likely to happen.
minority rules
We need to chew on the procedural rules that have allowed the minority to prevail over the majority on the fate of the non-binding resolutions in the Senate. Here is one story covering latest. More will follow today.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Follow up to "Intimidation?"
In a follow up to a posting from January 17, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detaine Affairs--Cully Stimson, has resigned. He became noteworthy for remarking in a radio interview that people should not do business with law firms that employed individuals who were representing terrorist suspects. He later recanted his statement, but it was not enough to save him his job.
Questions still remain regarding why he said what he did. Though there have been recent signs of cracking, the Bush White House has been remarkably disciplined. Did he say what he said because they were his beliefs or what he told to make the statement. If its the later--is he now being hung out to dry to deflect blame from the administration.
This type of activity is not unheard of.
Interested in government work?
Questions still remain regarding why he said what he did. Though there have been recent signs of cracking, the Bush White House has been remarkably disciplined. Did he say what he said because they were his beliefs or what he told to make the statement. If its the later--is he now being hung out to dry to deflect blame from the administration.
This type of activity is not unheard of.
Interested in government work?
Germany Sues CIA
We are about to find out whether and how U.S. power can be checked by other countries. The case involves the "extraordinary rendition" of a German citizen that the CIA believed had information about terrorism. It turned out to not be the case and he was released, but not after--he alleges--five months of torture in Afghanistan.
He is now suing the CIA and the German government has filed criminal charges against teh officers in question.
This raises questions of sovereignty, at the least. Is Germany right to act this way, or are they interfering with the U.S.'s legitimate efforts to root out and fight terrorism?
He is now suing the CIA and the German government has filed criminal charges against teh officers in question.
This raises questions of sovereignty, at the least. Is Germany right to act this way, or are they interfering with the U.S.'s legitimate efforts to root out and fight terrorism?
"articulate"
2301 students might want to catch up on the current controversy involving the use of the above adjective--among many others--by Senator Joseph Biden about Barak Obama. It is the latest example of how different groups in society interpret that same thing in different ways, a subject we will discuss more when we cover public opinion formation and the role peer groups play in its formation. The key sound bite: Obama is the "first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
What's the fuss you might ask?
Plenty apparently. Consider how you might feel if after the first test I complimented the class by stating how impressed I was that community college students such as yourselves were able to figue out which end of the pencil to use on the scantron. The compliment betrays a suspicion that you are distinguished because others like you lack the quality in question. Biden's remark carries with it the implication that other African-Americans presumably are not clean, bright and articulate. I would not be suprised to see poll results in a few days showing a racial divide in attitudes about the comment. White folks thinking it's blown out of proportion while black folks arguing that its further evidence of the subtle racism that lurks beneath society's surface.
So tell me: Is it reasonable for some to take offense or are people being too sensitive? Before you answer, think of things that you might personally take offensive given how you identify yourself--be it religious, political, occupational or whatever.
A second aspect of this episode is what it tells us about campaigning in the new digital, 24 hews cycle environment. Anything you say (and/or do) can and will be made available to all interested parties immediately. This is already old news. Ask ex-Senator George Allen among many others about YouTube's impact on their political ambitions. Commentators are already suggesting the Biden's presidential bid is doomed--and its barely begun.
Is this good or bads news?
What's the fuss you might ask?
Plenty apparently. Consider how you might feel if after the first test I complimented the class by stating how impressed I was that community college students such as yourselves were able to figue out which end of the pencil to use on the scantron. The compliment betrays a suspicion that you are distinguished because others like you lack the quality in question. Biden's remark carries with it the implication that other African-Americans presumably are not clean, bright and articulate. I would not be suprised to see poll results in a few days showing a racial divide in attitudes about the comment. White folks thinking it's blown out of proportion while black folks arguing that its further evidence of the subtle racism that lurks beneath society's surface.
So tell me: Is it reasonable for some to take offense or are people being too sensitive? Before you answer, think of things that you might personally take offensive given how you identify yourself--be it religious, political, occupational or whatever.
A second aspect of this episode is what it tells us about campaigning in the new digital, 24 hews cycle environment. Anything you say (and/or do) can and will be made available to all interested parties immediately. This is already old news. Ask ex-Senator George Allen among many others about YouTube's impact on their political ambitions. Commentators are already suggesting the Biden's presidential bid is doomed--and its barely begun.
Is this good or bads news?
Friday, February 2, 2007
Aqua Team Hunger Farce
Yes I'm very proud of the headline, thank you.
Who knew that the first major battle over freedom of speech this semester would involve guerilla marketing, a cartoon flipping off passers-by, a discussion of 70's hair styles and a town with absolutely no sense of humor? But that's where we are.
You may already know the facts of the case. Boston's men in blue were alerted to strange cutouts with circuit boards and lights that could only be bombs, but weren't. The city of Boston was apparently shut down and one of these objects was destroyed before someone learned that they were not in fact bombs, but odd devices designed to advertise an upcoming movie. The objects were traced to a couple of independent spirits affiliated with the Cartoon Network who were then arrested and charged with placing a hoax device intended to cause a panic, and disorderly conduct.
Let's think of this in constitutional terms.
Repeated court decisions have established that an individual's freedom of speech can be limited by the social need to preserve public order. The trick is two fold. First it has to be determined whether the speech involves a substantive right--such as the right to participate in political speech and second in determining whether public order was in fact violated by the act, or if the reaction was not reasonable considering the nature of the speech in question.
In the first case, this is commercial speech, which does not have the same protections as political speech (think of flag burning). This makes it more likely that punishment could be upheld by the Supreme Court since this was not abou conveying an idea as much as it was about selling something.
In the second, it is always difficult to prove what was going on in the mind of people when they are committing an act.
We'll soon see whether this issue will linger or will silently drop out of sight--perhaps out of embarrasment. Regardless, as a pure marketing technique I can't imagine a more successful way to raise awareness of a product. Who now is not aware of Aqua Team Hunger Force?
Who knew that the first major battle over freedom of speech this semester would involve guerilla marketing, a cartoon flipping off passers-by, a discussion of 70's hair styles and a town with absolutely no sense of humor? But that's where we are.
You may already know the facts of the case. Boston's men in blue were alerted to strange cutouts with circuit boards and lights that could only be bombs, but weren't. The city of Boston was apparently shut down and one of these objects was destroyed before someone learned that they were not in fact bombs, but odd devices designed to advertise an upcoming movie. The objects were traced to a couple of independent spirits affiliated with the Cartoon Network who were then arrested and charged with placing a hoax device intended to cause a panic, and disorderly conduct.
Let's think of this in constitutional terms.
Repeated court decisions have established that an individual's freedom of speech can be limited by the social need to preserve public order. The trick is two fold. First it has to be determined whether the speech involves a substantive right--such as the right to participate in political speech and second in determining whether public order was in fact violated by the act, or if the reaction was not reasonable considering the nature of the speech in question.
In the first case, this is commercial speech, which does not have the same protections as political speech (think of flag burning). This makes it more likely that punishment could be upheld by the Supreme Court since this was not abou conveying an idea as much as it was about selling something.
In the second, it is always difficult to prove what was going on in the mind of people when they are committing an act.
We'll soon see whether this issue will linger or will silently drop out of sight--perhaps out of embarrasment. Regardless, as a pure marketing technique I can't imagine a more successful way to raise awareness of a product. Who now is not aware of Aqua Team Hunger Force?
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Signing Statements and the Constitution
More oversight from the Judiciary Committee, but this time its the House Judiciary Committee and the subject is the constitutional status of presidential signing statements.
The title of the hearings suggests their tone: "Presidential Signing Statements under the Bush Administration: A Threat to Checks and Balances and the Rule of Law?"
I'll do what I can to summarize the arguments made by the witnesses.
The title of the hearings suggests their tone: "Presidential Signing Statements under the Bush Administration: A Threat to Checks and Balances and the Rule of Law?"
I'll do what I can to summarize the arguments made by the witnesses.
McCain, the Minimum Wage, and Race to the White House
Austin raises a point in his comment to the post about filibusters that ought be expanded:
"I would expect a filibuster on the war funding legislation, because even still, many in both parties are so diametrically opposed on that subject. What I didn't expect was one on the minimum wage hike that seems all but a sure thing. And especially from Senator McCain, who seems like a normal guy with a good head on his shoulders. I haven't always agreed with his decisions, but it seemed like he was acting on what he believed, and not just voting along party lines. This seems as if he's just he's trying to win a popularity contest. I can't blame him, considering his failed bid for the party nomination in 2000, and the fact that he is really the only strong prospect for the presidency that the party has right now. But to resist a rise in the minimum wage now? Not only may it hurt his already weakened party's chances for the presidency, but I think it would shake the middle and lower classes' confidence in the Republican's even more. It really demonstrates the dichotomy between the rich and poor to see someone deny people a living wage. If the GOP want to keep their base (what's left of it, at least) the should forget their newly rediscovered "fiscal responsibility" for a moment, and just sit this one out."
Let's assume that McCain is an intelligent, rational person who is taking positions that are poll and focus group tested and are likely to (1) win him the nomination of his party and (2) not hurt his chances of winning the presidency. Now let's try to figure out what that reasoning is.
This applies especially to 2301 since we cover elections, political parties and campaigning.
What's McCain up to?
"I would expect a filibuster on the war funding legislation, because even still, many in both parties are so diametrically opposed on that subject. What I didn't expect was one on the minimum wage hike that seems all but a sure thing. And especially from Senator McCain, who seems like a normal guy with a good head on his shoulders. I haven't always agreed with his decisions, but it seemed like he was acting on what he believed, and not just voting along party lines. This seems as if he's just he's trying to win a popularity contest. I can't blame him, considering his failed bid for the party nomination in 2000, and the fact that he is really the only strong prospect for the presidency that the party has right now. But to resist a rise in the minimum wage now? Not only may it hurt his already weakened party's chances for the presidency, but I think it would shake the middle and lower classes' confidence in the Republican's even more. It really demonstrates the dichotomy between the rich and poor to see someone deny people a living wage. If the GOP want to keep their base (what's left of it, at least) the should forget their newly rediscovered "fiscal responsibility" for a moment, and just sit this one out."
Let's assume that McCain is an intelligent, rational person who is taking positions that are poll and focus group tested and are likely to (1) win him the nomination of his party and (2) not hurt his chances of winning the presidency. Now let's try to figure out what that reasoning is.
This applies especially to 2301 since we cover elections, political parties and campaigning.
What's McCain up to?