Saturday, June 30, 2007
Showdown
The Hill outlines the latest conflict between Congress and the White House over executive privilege.
The White House says: "For the president to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisers and among those advisers and between those advisers and others within and outside the executive branch.”
Senate Judiciary member Charles Schumer "accused the White House of having an 'imperious attitude' toward Congress’s investigative power and the American people’s right to know. 'Show me an administration that likes secrecy, and I’ll show you an administration that has something to hide.'"
The Hill predicts that the battle will end up in the Supreme Court.
The White House says: "For the president to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisers and among those advisers and between those advisers and others within and outside the executive branch.”
Senate Judiciary member Charles Schumer "accused the White House of having an 'imperious attitude' toward Congress’s investigative power and the American people’s right to know. 'Show me an administration that likes secrecy, and I’ll show you an administration that has something to hide.'"
The Hill predicts that the battle will end up in the Supreme Court.
H Res 333
On April 24 Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney and recent events have led a small number of additional members of Congress to sign on.
That makes seven, which ain't much, but who knows if additional revelations might lead others to join up? It's worth monitoring.
That makes seven, which ain't much, but who knows if additional revelations might lead others to join up? It's worth monitoring.
Mapping and Democracy
Will Google Earth help spread democracy?
This raises old issues about how democracies develop: Incrementally due to internal factors, or suddenly due to external factors?
This raises old issues about how democracies develop: Incrementally due to internal factors, or suddenly due to external factors?
Supreme Court Summaries
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has shut down for the 06-07 session, various commentators are weighing in on the new direction the court is heading.
Big surprise: it's getting more conservative!
The more interesting analysis looks at the nature of that shift and whether it is driven by the ideological conservatism of Scalia and Thomas, or is more pragmatic and restrained--and whether Roberts and Alito will turn out to be thus. Is the narrow (and fragile given Kennedy's moderation) conservative majority likely to overturn precedents established by the Warren and Burger courts or simply scale them back?
Thus far the answer seems to be that they will scale them back, not because Scalia and Thomas do not want to overturn precedent, but because Roberts and Alito (and Kennedy) generally refuse to join them, which denies them the necessary majority. Things may change on the court, but now I think focus ought to be directed at the political environment. Will there be a political reaction to its decisions? Think of how Roe v Wade continues to motivate social conservatives. Add Engle v. Vitale, Miranda v. Arizona, and Griswold v. Connecticut and you had a slew of opinions that rallied what had been a dormant movement.
Will these recent decisions prove to have the same impact for a liberal movement? Stay tuned.
Here are links to analyses of the session:
- Scotusblog.
- Slate.
- BusinessWeek.
- CNN.
- prawsblawg.
- Reuter's.
- Associated Press.
I pulled these from scotusblog, which might be the best resource for links to sc commentaries.
For my current students who are considering taking my class in the second summer session, the writing assignment will focus on analyzing a case of your choice.
Big surprise: it's getting more conservative!
The more interesting analysis looks at the nature of that shift and whether it is driven by the ideological conservatism of Scalia and Thomas, or is more pragmatic and restrained--and whether Roberts and Alito will turn out to be thus. Is the narrow (and fragile given Kennedy's moderation) conservative majority likely to overturn precedents established by the Warren and Burger courts or simply scale them back?
Thus far the answer seems to be that they will scale them back, not because Scalia and Thomas do not want to overturn precedent, but because Roberts and Alito (and Kennedy) generally refuse to join them, which denies them the necessary majority. Things may change on the court, but now I think focus ought to be directed at the political environment. Will there be a political reaction to its decisions? Think of how Roe v Wade continues to motivate social conservatives. Add Engle v. Vitale, Miranda v. Arizona, and Griswold v. Connecticut and you had a slew of opinions that rallied what had been a dormant movement.
Will these recent decisions prove to have the same impact for a liberal movement? Stay tuned.
Here are links to analyses of the session:
- Scotusblog.
- Slate.
- BusinessWeek.
- CNN.
- prawsblawg.
- Reuter's.
- Associated Press.
I pulled these from scotusblog, which might be the best resource for links to sc commentaries.
For my current students who are considering taking my class in the second summer session, the writing assignment will focus on analyzing a case of your choice.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Restoring the Fairness Doctrine
Democrats in the Senate are trying to revive the fairness doctrine.
From 1949 to 1985 the Federal Communications Commission required that broadcast stations air controversial matters in a fair and balanced matter. There were concerns that stations that only aired one side of an issue would distort the quality of information the American public was likely to hear, especially given the limited number of stations available to listeners.
The problem for some broadcasters was that it would interfere with their right to determine what was fair and could lead to a chilling effect on the content of broadcasts. They may wish to shy away from issues that would trigger the fairness doctrine.
Mark Fowler--then FCC chairman--repealed the regulation. Congress restored the policy but Reagan vetoed it. Certainly Bush would do the same if the Democrats pass a similar law. Fowler argued that the fairness doctrine was not necessary given the greater variety of stations available made the regulation unnecessary.
Critics argue that the repeal of the regulation unleashed the rise of conservative talk radio. It's hard to imagine that stations that carry Rush Limbaugh would have the same impact if he was followed by a liberal commentator. Critics might also argue that Democrats are using their muscle to deflate the impact of talk radio since it's been an effective motivator for the Republican Party. A cynic might suspect that one's opinion of the doctrine is conditioned by whether one's party is helped or hurt by it.
For my part, I'm interested in whether the repeal of the doctrine contributed to what seems to me to be a more superficial political environment.
A realist may point out that since the doctrine could not apply to the internet and cable television--since neither is regulated by the FCC--the restoration of the doctrine may have little impact.
From 1949 to 1985 the Federal Communications Commission required that broadcast stations air controversial matters in a fair and balanced matter. There were concerns that stations that only aired one side of an issue would distort the quality of information the American public was likely to hear, especially given the limited number of stations available to listeners.
The problem for some broadcasters was that it would interfere with their right to determine what was fair and could lead to a chilling effect on the content of broadcasts. They may wish to shy away from issues that would trigger the fairness doctrine.
Mark Fowler--then FCC chairman--repealed the regulation. Congress restored the policy but Reagan vetoed it. Certainly Bush would do the same if the Democrats pass a similar law. Fowler argued that the fairness doctrine was not necessary given the greater variety of stations available made the regulation unnecessary.
Critics argue that the repeal of the regulation unleashed the rise of conservative talk radio. It's hard to imagine that stations that carry Rush Limbaugh would have the same impact if he was followed by a liberal commentator. Critics might also argue that Democrats are using their muscle to deflate the impact of talk radio since it's been an effective motivator for the Republican Party. A cynic might suspect that one's opinion of the doctrine is conditioned by whether one's party is helped or hurt by it.
For my part, I'm interested in whether the repeal of the doctrine contributed to what seems to me to be a more superficial political environment.
A realist may point out that since the doctrine could not apply to the internet and cable television--since neither is regulated by the FCC--the restoration of the doctrine may have little impact.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Rest Easy
The Vice Presidency has returned to the executive branch.
But now vp's lawyer argues that it is indistinguishable from the presidency, and is therefore not covered by an executive order mandating that federal agencies pony up classified material.
The lawyer in question is David Addington and he's worth knowing about.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has stepped into the fray and has subpoenaed vp documents related to wiretapping.
But now vp's lawyer argues that it is indistinguishable from the presidency, and is therefore not covered by an executive order mandating that federal agencies pony up classified material.
The lawyer in question is David Addington and he's worth knowing about.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has stepped into the fray and has subpoenaed vp documents related to wiretapping.
Speaking of the Internet
A rogue planet named Nibiru that passes by the earth once every 3,657 years is about to pass by within 5 years and will cause the poles to shift. The North Pole will become the South Pole etc... It wont lead to the end of the world, but will lead to the end of civilization.
How do I know this? Because it's covered in zetatalk.com, alienshift.com, and phils.com.
Don't say you haven't been warned.
How do I know this? Because it's covered in zetatalk.com, alienshift.com, and phils.com.
Don't say you haven't been warned.
The Shrinking Press
One of the angles explored in our discussion of the media is the greater concentration of media ownership made possible by the relaxation of ownership rules over the past decades, most recently the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Concentrated ownership is argued to reduce the number of voices involved in public debate, biasing outcomes towards those who own or influence media outlets. Those opposed to regulations point to newer technologies, like the Internet, that expand the number of voices since the costs of entry are reduced.
I know of no reliable studies that help determine which argument is more valid, but the media environment might be getting more concentrated if Rupert Murdoch purchases the Wall Street Journal.
Should the person who already controls Fox News also control the Wall Street Journal? If not, what might justify preventing him in doing so?
Concentrated ownership is argued to reduce the number of voices involved in public debate, biasing outcomes towards those who own or influence media outlets. Those opposed to regulations point to newer technologies, like the Internet, that expand the number of voices since the costs of entry are reduced.
I know of no reliable studies that help determine which argument is more valid, but the media environment might be getting more concentrated if Rupert Murdoch purchases the Wall Street Journal.
Should the person who already controls Fox News also control the Wall Street Journal? If not, what might justify preventing him in doing so?
How to Kill a Buzz
Now we know that a small majority of the court believes that public schools can punish students for speech that advocates, or takes a flippant attitude towards drug use. Again, it's not the speech itself, but the consequence that matters. We read through the introductions of each of the opinions written in the case in order to get a feel for what they were about.
I only pose as a constitutional scholar when necessary, so I recommend the following comments for real depth and insight regarding Morse v. Frederick: Althouse, Findlaw, the Volokh Conspiracy, and PrawfsBlawg.
A few items are worth pondering. Why did the five conservatives justices interpret "Bong Hits for Jesus" as pro drug, while three of the liberals saw it as nonsense? The typical conservative likes institutional control over individuals while liberals do not (this is a generalization of course), so did they just interpret the sign in a manner that would justify that end? At root are all justices activists who interpret language in a way that justifies their policy preferences?
Also, with one glaring exception, the majority of the justices did not want to overturn the precedent established in Tinker v. Des Moines which states that students did have the right to political expression and did not loose it when they walked into the school. Alito and Kennedy took the trouble to establish that Morse was about restricting speech that promoted an activity judged harmful to kids, and is illegal besides.
The positions of Breyer, Roberts, and Scalia are up in the air on this because the former did not believe this case should have been decided on free speech grounds, just on whether the principle was liable for damages (none of the nine justice believed that she was) and the latter two did not sign Alito's opinion.
Which leave us Clarence Thomas, who is beginning to freak me out.
Thomas believes in the doctrine of original intent, which has its variants but ultimately rests on the notion that the Constitution should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the original intent of the framers of the document--which assumes that such intent existed, and that the framers intended for their vision of the document to stay consistent over time and not be modified to fit changing circumstances. Thomas uses this doctrine to seemingly call for wholesale changes in how students are educated in public schools.
Here are a few tidbits from his argument:
". . . early public schools were not places for freewheeling debates or exploration of competing ideas. Rather, teachers instilled "a core of common values" in students and taught them self-control. . . . In short, in the earliest public schools, teachers taught, and students listened. Teachers commanded, and students obeyed. Teachers did not rely solely on the power of ideas to persuade; they relied on discipline to maintain order."
I'm no fan of the current state of public schools, but Thomas does not paint a picture of a time I'd like to go back to, or one that I think was especially laudatory. I say this while I've also been on a tear regarding the inability of schools to teach, but Thomas isn't talking about teaching, he's talking about control and indoctrination.
For him, we all went downhill when Tinker was decided (and Woodstock and the Beatles and hippies and all that I'm sure), so Tinker must be overturned. He makes his case with simple originalist language: "In my view, petitioners could prevail for a much simpler reason: As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools."
It is noteworthy that no one else signed Thomas' decision, especially not Scalia or Roberts whom I would have thought would be sympathetic to this argument.
It is also telling that no one bothers to challenge him by pointing out that the mere exclusion of this right in the Constitution should not be "construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people." That of course is the language of the Ninth Amendment which we have already seen invoked in a small number of occasions before by Ron Paul and Jack Kervorkian. It is ironic that Thomas ignores strict Constitutional language while he attempts to uphold a strict meaning of the Constitution. Are the other justices delinquent in not making this case? Might we be seeing the beginnings of a groundswell of support for the Ninth Amendment?
Were the opponents of the Bill of Rights correct when they claimed that its inclusion in the Constitution would actually lead to a reduction in the rights of individuals?
Added: Two other points slipped by a moment ago:
1-Has anyone else picked up on the irony that the education received as a result of the waving of the bong banner far surpassed anything that could have been learned by watching a torch go by. The students involved learned a ton about court procedures by actually going through the process. They took a case to the Supreme Court! How cool is that?
2-Maybe this was some elaborate prank.
Stoner 1 to Stoner 2: "Dude, I bet I can get the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to say 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus.'"
Stoner 2 to Stoner 1: " How're you going to do that?"
Stoner 1 to Stoner 2: "Well you know that torch that's coming by next week? . . .
The court's been punk'd.
A few items are worth pondering. Why did the five conservatives justices interpret "Bong Hits for Jesus" as pro drug, while three of the liberals saw it as nonsense? The typical conservative likes institutional control over individuals while liberals do not (this is a generalization of course), so did they just interpret the sign in a manner that would justify that end? At root are all justices activists who interpret language in a way that justifies their policy preferences?
Also, with one glaring exception, the majority of the justices did not want to overturn the precedent established in Tinker v. Des Moines which states that students did have the right to political expression and did not loose it when they walked into the school. Alito and Kennedy took the trouble to establish that Morse was about restricting speech that promoted an activity judged harmful to kids, and is illegal besides.
The positions of Breyer, Roberts, and Scalia are up in the air on this because the former did not believe this case should have been decided on free speech grounds, just on whether the principle was liable for damages (none of the nine justice believed that she was) and the latter two did not sign Alito's opinion.
Which leave us Clarence Thomas, who is beginning to freak me out.
Thomas believes in the doctrine of original intent, which has its variants but ultimately rests on the notion that the Constitution should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the original intent of the framers of the document--which assumes that such intent existed, and that the framers intended for their vision of the document to stay consistent over time and not be modified to fit changing circumstances. Thomas uses this doctrine to seemingly call for wholesale changes in how students are educated in public schools.
Here are a few tidbits from his argument:
". . . early public schools were not places for freewheeling debates or exploration of competing ideas. Rather, teachers instilled "a core of common values" in students and taught them self-control. . . . In short, in the earliest public schools, teachers taught, and students listened. Teachers commanded, and students obeyed. Teachers did not rely solely on the power of ideas to persuade; they relied on discipline to maintain order."
I'm no fan of the current state of public schools, but Thomas does not paint a picture of a time I'd like to go back to, or one that I think was especially laudatory. I say this while I've also been on a tear regarding the inability of schools to teach, but Thomas isn't talking about teaching, he's talking about control and indoctrination.
For him, we all went downhill when Tinker was decided (and Woodstock and the Beatles and hippies and all that I'm sure), so Tinker must be overturned. He makes his case with simple originalist language: "In my view, petitioners could prevail for a much simpler reason: As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools."
It is noteworthy that no one else signed Thomas' decision, especially not Scalia or Roberts whom I would have thought would be sympathetic to this argument.
It is also telling that no one bothers to challenge him by pointing out that the mere exclusion of this right in the Constitution should not be "construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people." That of course is the language of the Ninth Amendment which we have already seen invoked in a small number of occasions before by Ron Paul and Jack Kervorkian. It is ironic that Thomas ignores strict Constitutional language while he attempts to uphold a strict meaning of the Constitution. Are the other justices delinquent in not making this case? Might we be seeing the beginnings of a groundswell of support for the Ninth Amendment?
Were the opponents of the Bill of Rights correct when they claimed that its inclusion in the Constitution would actually lead to a reduction in the rights of individuals?
Added: Two other points slipped by a moment ago:
1-Has anyone else picked up on the irony that the education received as a result of the waving of the bong banner far surpassed anything that could have been learned by watching a torch go by. The students involved learned a ton about court procedures by actually going through the process. They took a case to the Supreme Court! How cool is that?
2-Maybe this was some elaborate prank.
Stoner 1 to Stoner 2: "Dude, I bet I can get the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to say 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus.'"
Stoner 2 to Stoner 1: " How're you going to do that?"
Stoner 1 to Stoner 2: "Well you know that torch that's coming by next week? . . .
The court's been punk'd.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
And About Those Vetos...
Paul Burka has several posts on the Texas Monthly site analyzing the governors 49 vetoes. Here at ACC we are most affected by the veto of a good chunk of money for employee health insurance. More on the leg's impact on us here at community colleges later, but here are links to Burka's posts:
- Assessing the Vetoes.
- Assessing the Vetoes, Part 2.
- Assessing the Vetoes, Part 3.
- Assessing the Vetoes, The Line Items.
- Assessing the Vetoes.
- Assessing the Vetoes, Part 2.
- Assessing the Vetoes, Part 3.
- Assessing the Vetoes, The Line Items.
Now About Cheney...
Time to outline the fallout from the vice president's latest attempt to justify keeping his activities and records secret.
In order to circumvent a rule that the National Archives be allowed access to classified documents to ensure that they are properly handled, he famously asserted that since his office has legislative functions, it is not part of the executive branch and is not subject to those rules. This has been going on for several years. Officers from the National Archives apparently went to the vice president's office to pick up the records and were prevented from entering. Mr. Cheney has since attempted to have the National Archives disbanded in order to get them off his back.
My first impression, and I can so easily be underestimating him, is that this is a gross miscalculation. This claim is so patently silly that it will rally opposition to him. He just looks ridiculous and has negated the fear and leverage he had used to silence potential opponents. I wonder if he still had the services of Scooter Libby if this would have happened. Fallout like this is what quality aides are there to prevent.
The floodgates are now open though and critics are becoming more vocal. Analyses of the role of the vice president over the course of this administration are also more frequent. The most interesting is a series of articles now being published by the Washington Post. The authors suggest that Cheney has been at the heart of the most important of the president's policies over his term of office. Cheney is described as detail oriented and technical, Bush less so. Presentations to Cheney are more precise than those given to the president. He is also secretive in order to hide his influence--which helps make him stronger. He's the unseen force making things happen. This is why he guard his privacy and does what he can to keep his actions secret.
Cheney is said to see his office as the de facto chief of staff for the president meaning that he is the gatekeeper that says what goes forward and what does not: "The president is "the decider," as Bush puts it, but the vice president often serves up his menu of choices."
It is difficult to read the article and not come to the conclusion that Cheney runs the show. This might be unfair, and maybe untrue at the end of the day, but that's how it seems
In order to circumvent a rule that the National Archives be allowed access to classified documents to ensure that they are properly handled, he famously asserted that since his office has legislative functions, it is not part of the executive branch and is not subject to those rules. This has been going on for several years. Officers from the National Archives apparently went to the vice president's office to pick up the records and were prevented from entering. Mr. Cheney has since attempted to have the National Archives disbanded in order to get them off his back.
My first impression, and I can so easily be underestimating him, is that this is a gross miscalculation. This claim is so patently silly that it will rally opposition to him. He just looks ridiculous and has negated the fear and leverage he had used to silence potential opponents. I wonder if he still had the services of Scooter Libby if this would have happened. Fallout like this is what quality aides are there to prevent.
The floodgates are now open though and critics are becoming more vocal. Analyses of the role of the vice president over the course of this administration are also more frequent. The most interesting is a series of articles now being published by the Washington Post. The authors suggest that Cheney has been at the heart of the most important of the president's policies over his term of office. Cheney is described as detail oriented and technical, Bush less so. Presentations to Cheney are more precise than those given to the president. He is also secretive in order to hide his influence--which helps make him stronger. He's the unseen force making things happen. This is why he guard his privacy and does what he can to keep his actions secret.
Cheney is said to see his office as the de facto chief of staff for the president meaning that he is the gatekeeper that says what goes forward and what does not: "The president is "the decider," as Bush puts it, but the vice president often serves up his menu of choices."
It is difficult to read the article and not come to the conclusion that Cheney runs the show. This might be unfair, and maybe untrue at the end of the day, but that's how it seems
Monday, June 25, 2007
The Limits of Rational Thought
On the way to the airport Friday I read a potentially important opinion piece in the New York Times from their resident conservative, David Brooks. You have to be a subscriber to link to it, but it questions efforts to change behavior by persuading high schoolers--or the high schooler in all of us--to resist temptation and act morally.
It touches on issues we are covering in the public opinion section about how we process information. By the time we are in a position to face temptation, we have already been exposed to stimuli that will condition our responses--responses that will be reactive, not thought driven.
Kids raised in happy houses behave differently than those raised in violence. The presence of a caring father at an early age will have a greater impact on how a girl responds to sexual overtures than high school abstinence lessons. The behavior in each case are adapted to the needs created in each environment.
Brooks does not go into neural research, but he could have. Cognitive research suggests that thought is a product of neural pathways that develop in the brain over one's life--but primarily in one's early years. The behavior one is exposed to (peer groups, families, etc...) affects this development, which determines one's attitude, which then influences later decisions.
It's disturbing to those of us who believe in free will, but the case is compelling. If taken to an extreme, might this suggest that is impossible to modify human behavior past a certain age?
It touches on issues we are covering in the public opinion section about how we process information. By the time we are in a position to face temptation, we have already been exposed to stimuli that will condition our responses--responses that will be reactive, not thought driven.
Kids raised in happy houses behave differently than those raised in violence. The presence of a caring father at an early age will have a greater impact on how a girl responds to sexual overtures than high school abstinence lessons. The behavior in each case are adapted to the needs created in each environment.
Brooks does not go into neural research, but he could have. Cognitive research suggests that thought is a product of neural pathways that develop in the brain over one's life--but primarily in one's early years. The behavior one is exposed to (peer groups, families, etc...) affects this development, which determines one's attitude, which then influences later decisions.
It's disturbing to those of us who believe in free will, but the case is compelling. If taken to an extreme, might this suggest that is impossible to modify human behavior past a certain age?
Back to the Grind
It's nice to report that New Orleans was worth the visit.
If you stick to the French Quarter you'd have no idea a storm went through about two years ago. Being the first part of the city to be settled, it's on the highest ground and is protected by the strongest levee (we learned that the levees didn't fail by the way, the floodgates did).
We took a tour of the worst hit areas so we did see evidence of destruction. I took photographs from the bus, so the results are tinted and off kilter, but you get a sense of the damage.
This home was in Lakeside, near the floodgates that burst to the west. The owner was caught in the attic and broke through the roof--that's the hole you see in the picture. Not everyone was so lucky. Holes cut through by rescue workers are clean.
This is an new art piece in the median on one of the now treeless boulevards in the lower ninth ward. The poles correspond to the depth of the water in different areas of the city.
A large number of the homes in the area have these trailers in front of them. The families live in them while the homes are being repaired
But not all residents have returned, so many homes still lie empty. Our guide told us that you don't get a sense of the emptiness until its dark and you notice the large number of dark houses.
This is the closest I got to a picture that shows a whole block cleared of damaged homes. Not good quality, but you get a sense of the storms impact on the community.
But there were people out and about and I was able to make a friend.
Just so you know that it wasn't all darkness and devastation there was a swingers convention in a hotel on Bourbon Street--note the green armbands. We took note of them as we walked around the quarter. Just goes to show you that everyone was working as hard as they could to get the city back on track in their own special way.
If you stick to the French Quarter you'd have no idea a storm went through about two years ago. Being the first part of the city to be settled, it's on the highest ground and is protected by the strongest levee (we learned that the levees didn't fail by the way, the floodgates did).
We took a tour of the worst hit areas so we did see evidence of destruction. I took photographs from the bus, so the results are tinted and off kilter, but you get a sense of the damage.
This home was in Lakeside, near the floodgates that burst to the west. The owner was caught in the attic and broke through the roof--that's the hole you see in the picture. Not everyone was so lucky. Holes cut through by rescue workers are clean.
This is an new art piece in the median on one of the now treeless boulevards in the lower ninth ward. The poles correspond to the depth of the water in different areas of the city.
A large number of the homes in the area have these trailers in front of them. The families live in them while the homes are being repaired
But not all residents have returned, so many homes still lie empty. Our guide told us that you don't get a sense of the emptiness until its dark and you notice the large number of dark houses.
This is the closest I got to a picture that shows a whole block cleared of damaged homes. Not good quality, but you get a sense of the storms impact on the community.
But there were people out and about and I was able to make a friend.
Just so you know that it wasn't all darkness and devastation there was a swingers convention in a hotel on Bourbon Street--note the green armbands. We took note of them as we walked around the quarter. Just goes to show you that everyone was working as hard as they could to get the city back on track in their own special way.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Fast Learner
Several stories cover (Freshman Democratic Representative of Connecticutt's 2nd District) Joe Courtney's ability to quickly figure out how to get things done in Congress. He's stoking fears of China and using it to support further production of nuclear powered submarines, which happen to be made in his district. 6,000 jobs are on the line.
Since Courtney is a freshman, and won by only 83 votes, he's vulnerable. Demorats are pumping as much money in his district as possible to ward off a challenger. So what if it leads to an arms race? It's just pork.
Read up on this here: Matt Yglesias, Brad Plumer, and the Washington Post.
Since Courtney is a freshman, and won by only 83 votes, he's vulnerable. Demorats are pumping as much money in his district as possible to ward off a challenger. So what if it leads to an arms race? It's just pork.
Read up on this here: Matt Yglesias, Brad Plumer, and the Washington Post.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Ron Paul: Cover Boy
He's on the cover of this month's American Conservative.
A sympathetic story gives him the time to defend his views and points out that some of his problems stem from his unwillingness to simplify his positions so that they can translate better through the media. What does this say about the other candidates?
The story clarifies at least one thing for me. I've always wondered how he got away with some of his votes. Why didn't the Republican leadership slap him around in order to keep him in line? Here's why: "The physician cum congressman earned the nickname “Dr. No” early on. His opposition to what he considers unconstitutional spending even earned the grudging respect of GOP leaders. When Newt Gingrich cracked the whip on party members to support a messy budget compromise, he excused Paul from the duty to support the budget, and the “Ron Paul exemption” entered the congressional vocabulary. What did it take for other members to earn this privilege to buck the party? A voting record that opposed all unnecessary federal spending, even in their home district. No one else has been granted the exemption."
Our Congressman is the flavor of the month. Pretty cool. The story is well worth the read.
A sympathetic story gives him the time to defend his views and points out that some of his problems stem from his unwillingness to simplify his positions so that they can translate better through the media. What does this say about the other candidates?
The story clarifies at least one thing for me. I've always wondered how he got away with some of his votes. Why didn't the Republican leadership slap him around in order to keep him in line? Here's why: "The physician cum congressman earned the nickname “Dr. No” early on. His opposition to what he considers unconstitutional spending even earned the grudging respect of GOP leaders. When Newt Gingrich cracked the whip on party members to support a messy budget compromise, he excused Paul from the duty to support the budget, and the “Ron Paul exemption” entered the congressional vocabulary. What did it take for other members to earn this privilege to buck the party? A voting record that opposed all unnecessary federal spending, even in their home district. No one else has been granted the exemption."
Our Congressman is the flavor of the month. Pretty cool. The story is well worth the read.
biotech art
You'd have to stretch to find something political in this, but its too cool to let pass.
Thanks Mike
Thanks to Mike O'Day, the District 29 Texas Rep, and his staff for hosting an open house at their district office in Pearland. It's located near the intersection of FM 518 and I-35 and if you live in his district you should stop by to say hello. Terrie Morgan is there full time and spends her days handling constituents.
The rep walked us through a draft of a powerpoint presentation of the recently completed session and his involvement in it. He'll forward us a copy once its finished and I'll post a link to it.
For me his most surprising comment regarded the brevity of the session. Too short, not enough time to understand all the positions held by the different legislators. He didn't come out and say that they should meet longer, but he hinted that they should. Maybe the wheels are being set in motion.
He refrained from blasting the legislative process, and admitted to having a higher opinion of it now that he's seen it from the inside. He did suggest that the members who took on Craddick were out of line and that the parliamentary moves taken towards the end of the session would have created a precedent where future speakers could be removed for political reasons. As it stands, he or she can only be removed for criminal misbehavior.
He's willing to come to campus sometime soon. I'll let you know once we set it up.
The rep walked us through a draft of a powerpoint presentation of the recently completed session and his involvement in it. He'll forward us a copy once its finished and I'll post a link to it.
For me his most surprising comment regarded the brevity of the session. Too short, not enough time to understand all the positions held by the different legislators. He didn't come out and say that they should meet longer, but he hinted that they should. Maybe the wheels are being set in motion.
He refrained from blasting the legislative process, and admitted to having a higher opinion of it now that he's seen it from the inside. He did suggest that the members who took on Craddick were out of line and that the parliamentary moves taken towards the end of the session would have created a precedent where future speakers could be removed for political reasons. As it stands, he or she can only be removed for criminal misbehavior.
He's willing to come to campus sometime soon. I'll let you know once we set it up.
The Son of Signing Statements Continued
Much commentary yesterday and today about the GAO report on presidential signing statements.
Slate reprints a comment from Dahlia Lithwick where she claims that the real problem with these statements doe not have to do with any dispute with a particular bill but "because Article II of the Constitution does not permit any interference with his 'power to supervise the unitary executive.' That's not an objection to some act of Congress. That's an objection to Congressional authority itself."
The clear intent of these statement, she claims is to minimize the ability of Congress to check the power of the executive.
Slate reprints a comment from Dahlia Lithwick where she claims that the real problem with these statements doe not have to do with any dispute with a particular bill but "because Article II of the Constitution does not permit any interference with his 'power to supervise the unitary executive.' That's not an objection to some act of Congress. That's an objection to Congressional authority itself."
The clear intent of these statement, she claims is to minimize the ability of Congress to check the power of the executive.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Comments: Paris Hilton 11 Habeas Corpus 0
No one still seems to care much about the unauthorized detention of American citizens.
hmmmm
hmmmm
Monday, June 18, 2007
The Best, Worst, and Honorable Mentions
Paul Burka engages in a post legislative ritual"
The Best and Worst Legislators.
The Honorable and Dishonorable.
Note the cryptic comment regarding our own Mike O'Day. No one's saying nuthin.
The Best and Worst Legislators.
The Honorable and Dishonorable.
Note the cryptic comment regarding our own Mike O'Day. No one's saying nuthin.
Signing Statements Continued
BlueHerald and others blog on the president's continued use of signing statements and his citing of the unitary executive theory a justification for it.
The Government Accountability Office responded to a request by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and issued a report today (6-18-07) detailing their use. Click here for the press release from Byrd's office.
The report studies a small sample of bills and finds that over 30% were not implemented as Congress requested. Both Byrd and Conyers now call for a broader investigation.
The Government Accountability Office responded to a request by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and issued a report today (6-18-07) detailing their use. Click here for the press release from Byrd's office.
The report studies a small sample of bills and finds that over 30% were not implemented as Congress requested. Both Byrd and Conyers now call for a broader investigation.
Speedways and Spaceports
While hunting down links I ran into a couple of stories about defunct (or stalled) local projects.
First, the Houston Super Speedway that was to have been built on 288 and FM 1492.
Second, the Gulf Coast Regional Spaceport off FM 2004.
Pity.
First, the Houston Super Speedway that was to have been built on 288 and FM 1492.
Second, the Gulf Coast Regional Spaceport off FM 2004.
Pity.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Immigration in the House and Senate
I'll catch up shortly with the immigration saga as it winds through the Congress, but this National Public Radio story points out conflict between Georgia's two senators (Chambliss and Isakson) and the candidates for the open seat for district 10, which is just east of Atlanta.
The candidates, at least the Republicans, seem unanimously upset at the two (Republican) senators because of their support of efforts to clear the way for illegal aliens to become citizens. Does the conflict reflect the preferences of the calm, stable trustee versus those of the unstable delegate who must reflect the passions of the district in order to get elected? Perhaps this issue illustrates the idea that the Senate is the "saucer that cools the tea." Or are senators reflecting the interests of the business community (their true constituents) over those of the common people whose champions are in the House?
The candidates, at least the Republicans, seem unanimously upset at the two (Republican) senators because of their support of efforts to clear the way for illegal aliens to become citizens. Does the conflict reflect the preferences of the calm, stable trustee versus those of the unstable delegate who must reflect the passions of the district in order to get elected? Perhaps this issue illustrates the idea that the Senate is the "saucer that cools the tea." Or are senators reflecting the interests of the business community (their true constituents) over those of the common people whose champions are in the House?
Veto
The Chronicle tells us that today is the 20th Calendar day since the close of the legislative session and the last day that the governor can veto legislation. The report on the Texas Legislature Online has not been updated, but the chron outlines the vetoed legislation thus far.
Outage
My apologies for the lack of recent posts. My connection at home was down from Wednesday to Saturday. Time to catch up.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The Great Communicator
Tuesday marked the 20th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's "Tear Down this Wall" speech in Berlin. The speech has been argued to have focused attention on the Soviet Union and contributed to a series of events that led to the actual tearing down of the wall two years later.
It is one of the better examples of presidential oratory in the past few decades.
Here's commentary:
20 Years After "Tear Down This Wall"
Seizing the Moment
The speech itself.
It is one of the better examples of presidential oratory in the past few decades.
Here's commentary:
20 Years After "Tear Down This Wall"
Seizing the Moment
The speech itself.
Souvenir Time!
Be careful when you go to Albania. Matthew Yglesias thinks Bush's watch was stolen by someone in the crowd the President walks through.
Notice that he has his watch on his left wrist around 3:18-15, but it's clearly gone by 2:15. It may be gone by 2:45, but I can't tell. Who dunnit? And what's the Secret Service good for anyway?
Notice that he has his watch on his left wrist around 3:18-15, but it's clearly gone by 2:15. It may be gone by 2:45, but I can't tell. Who dunnit? And what's the Secret Service good for anyway?
The American Freedom Agenda
In response to concerns about concentrated executive powers, a group of prominent conservatives has created the American Freedom Agenda to, in their words, "restore the Constitution’s checks and balances as enshrined by the Founding Fathers."
The group suggests that Mitt Romney-and probably the bulk of the announced presidential candidates-are ignorant of the checks and balances and the protections from government abuses written into the Constitution.
With that in mind I shouldn't be so hard on my students for also being ignorant of this stuff also. Or maybe I should ramp it up.
By the way--they like our boy Ron Paul.
The group suggests that Mitt Romney-and probably the bulk of the announced presidential candidates-are ignorant of the checks and balances and the protections from government abuses written into the Constitution.
With that in mind I shouldn't be so hard on my students for also being ignorant of this stuff also. Or maybe I should ramp it up.
By the way--they like our boy Ron Paul.
Don't Ask Don't Tell
Thanks to Brad for sending me this link about the "gay bomb."
A few takes on this story are possible.
The military has always been on the cutting edge of research. Both the computer and the internet were spurred by military needs and funded by the huge budgets it consistently receives. Current research focuses on robotics, nutrition and neurology . . . and who knows what else.
Today's New York Times contains a story about efforts to bend light around objects, which makes them invisible. I think I deserve credit for keeping the dozen childish comments coursing through my head to myself.
A few takes on this story are possible.
- this is a worthwhile effort to develop non-lethal means to defeat an enemy.- it confirms the idea that "military intelligence" is an oxymoron.- you can change someones' sexual orientation that easily?- is this hypocritical considering the military's stance on homosexuality?
The military has always been on the cutting edge of research. Both the computer and the internet were spurred by military needs and funded by the huge budgets it consistently receives. Current research focuses on robotics, nutrition and neurology . . . and who knows what else.
Today's New York Times contains a story about efforts to bend light around objects, which makes them invisible. I think I deserve credit for keeping the dozen childish comments coursing through my head to myself.
Paris Hilton v. Habeas Corpus
I always get a kick out of monitoring which posts get the most responses and which get little or none. The Paris Hilton post is gaining on the record holder: Caveman's Crib. A handful of you seem to be actually worked up about her current situation, but no one seems upset by the shaky status of habeas corpus, an issue of far greater importance since it keep us free from the indiscriminate, arbitrary actions of the state (ie., being randomly hauled off by the police).
There may be a valid reason for this imbalance though. I want you to explain it to me.
Why do you get worked up over Paris Hilton and not expansive police powers?
Added: I'm still getting comments about Paris Hilton and only Paris Hilton! Does the potential of unchecked police power bother anyone more than how she is being treated by the justice system? Maybe I'm not being clear. Tell me.
There may be a valid reason for this imbalance though. I want you to explain it to me.
Why do you get worked up over Paris Hilton and not expansive police powers?
Added: I'm still getting comments about Paris Hilton and only Paris Hilton! Does the potential of unchecked police power bother anyone more than how she is being treated by the justice system? Maybe I'm not being clear. Tell me.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Justice for Paris Hilton!
There may not be a human alive--apart from Paris Hilton I imagine--who is not getting a kick out of her current plight. No doubt she's brought it all on herself due to a combination of reckless behavior and privilege, but could it be that she is being treated unfairly? Is she a victim of celebrity? I'm no expert on California DUI law, but what I've read suggests that a 45 day sentence for her crime is unusually high. If so, was her civil right to be treated equally before the law violated?
There's a common perception, and in many cases certainly a reality, that the wealthy are treated more leniently before the law often because they know the law and can hire lawyers that defend them to the hilt. It may be though that they are not treated unequally by the legal process, but their situation allows them to fully claim their legal rights whereas others are not so able. Are we then willing to look the other way from time to time when celebrity status makes someone a target?
Isn't this a test of our actual willingness to ensure that people are treated equally? Or are licking our chops out of jealousy?
Here's further commentary from Ann Althouse and the comments on this post are revealing.
There's a common perception, and in many cases certainly a reality, that the wealthy are treated more leniently before the law often because they know the law and can hire lawyers that defend them to the hilt. It may be though that they are not treated unequally by the legal process, but their situation allows them to fully claim their legal rights whereas others are not so able. Are we then willing to look the other way from time to time when celebrity status makes someone a target?
Isn't this a test of our actual willingness to ensure that people are treated equally? Or are licking our chops out of jealousy?
Here's further commentary from Ann Althouse and the comments on this post are revealing.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Herding Cats While in the Minority
The New Republic has a story--which I can't link to at the moment--about House Minority Leader John Boehner's success in retaining cohesion among Republicans in the House despite their disillusion following the election of 2006.
Republicans in the House are noted for their ability to be cohesive, to vote together. It explains their success in passing legislation though they never enjoyed huge leads over Democrats while in the majority from 1994 - 2006. The election tested this unity since they could no longer dominate the legislative process. Some suggested that each individual Republican had to fend for themselves, act as free agents. Early votes showed that solid handfuls of Republicans were voting with the Democrats, which raised the possibility that a veto proof coalition could emerge and shut down any chance that President Bush could remain relevant.
Enter John Boehner.
He rallied the party prior to the vote earlier this year on the nonbinding resolution opposing the surge in Iraq, which gradually built up the party's confidence. He has encouraged party members to take a confrontational stance with Democrats and turned conference meetings into pep rallies. This sets back any chance that Democrats could take control of the public policy process.
Whether this helps House Republicans in the 2008 elections remains to be seen. They could end up further tying themselves to policies that could continue to be unpopular, but the camaraderie can't hurt.
Republicans in the House are noted for their ability to be cohesive, to vote together. It explains their success in passing legislation though they never enjoyed huge leads over Democrats while in the majority from 1994 - 2006. The election tested this unity since they could no longer dominate the legislative process. Some suggested that each individual Republican had to fend for themselves, act as free agents. Early votes showed that solid handfuls of Republicans were voting with the Democrats, which raised the possibility that a veto proof coalition could emerge and shut down any chance that President Bush could remain relevant.
Enter John Boehner.
He rallied the party prior to the vote earlier this year on the nonbinding resolution opposing the surge in Iraq, which gradually built up the party's confidence. He has encouraged party members to take a confrontational stance with Democrats and turned conference meetings into pep rallies. This sets back any chance that Democrats could take control of the public policy process.
Whether this helps House Republicans in the 2008 elections remains to be seen. They could end up further tying themselves to policies that could continue to be unpopular, but the camaraderie can't hurt.
Habeas Corpus Redux?
The Senate Judiciary Committee is considering the Restoration of Habeas Corpus Act (S. 185 this week. Committee hearings were held on May 14th.
The bill would overturn restrictions on habeas corpus established in the Military Commissions Act.
For commentary when the bill was introduced, look here. And look here.
For a definition of Habeas Corpus look here.
The bill would overturn restrictions on habeas corpus established in the Military Commissions Act.
For commentary when the bill was introduced, look here. And look here.
For a definition of Habeas Corpus look here.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
A Monopoly on the Legitimate Use of Coercion
Has a competitor to the authority of the U.S. government emerged in the armed forces?
Meet the Gangster Disciples.
They've apparently decided to become legit, but efforts to recruit members in the army have taken an unfortunate turn.
A serious threat to the military? Or is this the type of threat the government knows how to handle?
Meet the Gangster Disciples.
They've apparently decided to become legit, but efforts to recruit members in the army have taken an unfortunate turn.
A serious threat to the military? Or is this the type of threat the government knows how to handle?
Authoritarianism in Venezuela
Hugo Chavez seems bent on establishing an authoritarian regime in Venezuela.
Aside from his recent decision to close Radio Caracas Television because of its critical stance towards him, he has sought to
- extend the amount of time he can serve as president.
- rule by decree.
- nationalize the energy sector.
- rewrite the Venezuelan Constitution to expand his power.
Authoritarian regimes are noteworthy because their efforts to expand power are checked by external forces. What external forces might check Chavez?
Aside from his recent decision to close Radio Caracas Television because of its critical stance towards him, he has sought to
- extend the amount of time he can serve as president.
- rule by decree.
- nationalize the energy sector.
- rewrite the Venezuelan Constitution to expand his power.
Authoritarian regimes are noteworthy because their efforts to expand power are checked by external forces. What external forces might check Chavez?
An Economist Ponders Grief Over War Death
Not the private grief a family feels for a lost son or daughter (or father or mopther or brother or sister or friend), but the grief society feels for losing soldiers in a war. It's no surprise after all, no one promises otherwise.
Economics is called the dismal science for a reason.
Economics is called the dismal science for a reason.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Hideaways
I've heard about these places. It's a pity that the story doesn't have photographs though.
Darkening the Door
This comment by Tom Tancredo at last night's Republican debate could prove problematic for President Bush's ability to sustain even the low levels of popularity he maintains now:
Update (6-8-07): Today's Gallup Poll update shows that the President's approval rate has continued to slip overall, and also among Republicans. In mid-April 76% of Republicans approved of his job performance, the poll shows that this figure has slipped to 70%. It's still high, but it should be high since it's the President's party. It's worth noting that these figure were collected prior to the debate and Tancredo's comments, but the general environment may be changing and Republicans may feel more free to speak ill of Mr. Bush.
“Some time ago, 2003, I think it was, that I got a call fromThe little support the president has comes from Republicans who feel they must support their party leader. Hearing leaders of the party openly criticize the president--and not be criticized in turn--may allow them to feel free to disapprove of him also.
Karl Rove who told me that because of my criticism of the
president, I should never darken the doorstep of the
White House,” he said.
He added, “As president, I would have to tell George
Bush exactly the same thing that Karl Rove told me”
because he was so disappointed in various aspects of
the President’s program, including education and the
prescription drug bureaucracy, as well as immigration
reform.
Update (6-8-07): Today's Gallup Poll update shows that the President's approval rate has continued to slip overall, and also among Republicans. In mid-April 76% of Republicans approved of his job performance, the poll shows that this figure has slipped to 70%. It's still high, but it should be high since it's the President's party. It's worth noting that these figure were collected prior to the debate and Tancredo's comments, but the general environment may be changing and Republicans may feel more free to speak ill of Mr. Bush.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Opportunity Urbanism
The buzz for urban planners over the past decade has been over "the creative class." Cities that could lure the young and hip would succeed in the new economy because they would create the next generation of cutting edge technologies and the businesses that would spawn off it. Other would want to follow behind them and growth, hip growth, would ensue. Since the members of this class could live anywhere they wanted, cities had to compete to create environments that would lure them: green spaces, clubs, restaurants, all that stuff.
Joel Kotkin is out to disprove this theory and presented his ideas to the Greater Houston Partnership today.
He calls his theory "opportunity urbanism" and argues that the creative class focuses too much on elites. The true growth cities are those that focus on building the old fashioned middle class by providing a solid infrastructure, good schools, a manufacturing base that attracts blue collar workers, and let's the fancy stuff take care of itself.
He uses Houston as a prime example of such a city and points out that the "superstar" cities like San Francisco and New York are pricing out the middle class and are actually losing population as a result.
Joel Kotkin is out to disprove this theory and presented his ideas to the Greater Houston Partnership today.
He calls his theory "opportunity urbanism" and argues that the creative class focuses too much on elites. The true growth cities are those that focus on building the old fashioned middle class by providing a solid infrastructure, good schools, a manufacturing base that attracts blue collar workers, and let's the fancy stuff take care of itself.
He uses Houston as a prime example of such a city and points out that the "superstar" cities like San Francisco and New York are pricing out the middle class and are actually losing population as a result.
Strictly Interpreting the Constitution
An explanation in a nutshell:
George W. Bush: "I believe in strict constructionists. Those are the kind of judges I will appoint."
William Rehnquist: "a strict constructionist judge is one who favors criminal prosecutors over criminal defendants, and civil rights defendants over civil rights plaintiffs."
New York Times: "The Supreme Court today . . . appeared to make it easier for prosecutors to select jurors who are predisposed toward capital punishment in future cases."
And there you have it.
from Matthew Yglesias
George W. Bush: "I believe in strict constructionists. Those are the kind of judges I will appoint."
William Rehnquist: "a strict constructionist judge is one who favors criminal prosecutors over criminal defendants, and civil rights defendants over civil rights plaintiffs."
New York Times: "The Supreme Court today . . . appeared to make it easier for prosecutors to select jurors who are predisposed toward capital punishment in future cases."
And there you have it.
from Matthew Yglesias
Unplanned Obscenities
The Federal Communications Commissions' campaign against expletives on the airwaves suffered a set back when an appeals court ruled that it could not punish broadcasters for the sudden expletives belted out by those they air.
One separated power checks another.
One separated power checks another.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Secrecy and the VP
Democracies want it all. They want accountability and effective government.
But accountability requires transparency, which means that we need to know who does what so they can be held responsible for the results, and effective government sometimes requires that decision makers be given the opportunity to get confidential advice from sources that know they will remain confidential. The concept is called executive privilege and it has a long history in the United States.
The Vice President continues to argue that he must be able to keep his visitor logs secret, so he can preserve the confidentiality he need to get reasonable advice.
The White House calls this "a matter of principle, saying in a court declaration that it is aimed at preserving "the effective functioning of the vice presidency under the Constitution." The group Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington disagrees and is fighting to make this information public. The question is whether there is something illegal going on or if the Vice President simply likes doing things in private.
But accountability requires transparency, which means that we need to know who does what so they can be held responsible for the results, and effective government sometimes requires that decision makers be given the opportunity to get confidential advice from sources that know they will remain confidential. The concept is called executive privilege and it has a long history in the United States.
The Vice President continues to argue that he must be able to keep his visitor logs secret, so he can preserve the confidentiality he need to get reasonable advice.
The White House calls this "a matter of principle, saying in a court declaration that it is aimed at preserving "the effective functioning of the vice presidency under the Constitution." The group Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington disagrees and is fighting to make this information public. The question is whether there is something illegal going on or if the Vice President simply likes doing things in private.
Passion, Public Opinion and Immigration
A radio story this morning pointed out a difficulty representatives have when they try to determine how their constituents want them to vote. Sometimes the minority opinion is the most passionateand the loudest.
The report states that though a majority of the population favors amnesty for illegals aliens, calls to the offices of members of Congress often run 20 - 1 against it.
What's a self interested politician to do (sorry to be redundant)? Do you represent the will of the population, or of the voters? They are not the same.
The report states that though a majority of the population favors amnesty for illegals aliens, calls to the offices of members of Congress often run 20 - 1 against it.
What's a self interested politician to do (sorry to be redundant)? Do you represent the will of the population, or of the voters? They are not the same.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Google Earth
I just dowloaded Google Earth and of course the first thing I did was zoom in on my house and I saw a reasonably clear picture of my truck parked on the street. Very cool, but spookier the more you think about it.
Meet Joe Jaworski
Next week my 2302, which meets at 10:30am will get to meet Joe Jaworski, a city council member from Galveston who will run for the Texas Senate, district 11, in 2008. His platform focuses primarily on environmental issues, which should put him at odds with some of our current representatives who tend to side more with business interests and job creation.
All students are encouraged to come and ask him what you'd like to know. He wants to be your senator so he owes you his attention.
All students are encouraged to come and ask him what you'd like to know. He wants to be your senator so he owes you his attention.
Bills selected so far
This is not a complete list, and I will add information to this as necessary, but so far this is the list of bills either passed or considered strongly by the Texas Legislature that students will analyze. Just bill numbers now. Descriptions to follow. I expect to have bills assigned to everyone by the end of the week.
HB 9
HB 12
HB 14
HB 109
HB 916
HB 1034
HB 1287
HB 1355
HB 1386
HB 1466
HB 1751
HB 2685
HJR 19
SB 8
SB 10
SB 11
SB 12
SB 47
SB 101
SB 530
SB 785
SB 792
SB 920
HB 9
HB 12
HB 14
HB 109
HB 916
HB 1034
HB 1287
HB 1355
HB 1386
HB 1466
HB 1751
HB 2685
HJR 19
SB 8
SB 10
SB 11
SB 12
SB 47
SB 101
SB 530
SB 785
SB 792
SB 920
You Are Now Free to Mess With Texas
Among the items not dealt with during the legislative session was a proposal to move the Texas Primary from early March to early February in order to compete with California, New York and a host of other states that had already done so.
The Chron suggests, correctly I think, that Texas may now be irrelevant in selecting the nominees for the Democratic or Republican Parties. It's not inconceivable that someone will have either or both races locked up before Texans get a chance to vote. What's more, the candidates that tilt to the left may have the advantage because a good chunk of the states voting February 5th are tend to be liberal or at least moderate. The above two states, along with Illinois, New Jersey and Michigan contain about a quarter of the population. The conservative candidates that have benefited from the previous primary calendars may be at a disadvantage.
Considering that the legislative session broke down over Speaker Tom Craddick's rule over the House, it is worth considering whether his autocratic style may play a key role in Texas' loss of power. Had these fights not occurred, the legislation changing the date may have gone forward.
The Chron suggests, correctly I think, that Texas may now be irrelevant in selecting the nominees for the Democratic or Republican Parties. It's not inconceivable that someone will have either or both races locked up before Texans get a chance to vote. What's more, the candidates that tilt to the left may have the advantage because a good chunk of the states voting February 5th are tend to be liberal or at least moderate. The above two states, along with Illinois, New Jersey and Michigan contain about a quarter of the population. The conservative candidates that have benefited from the previous primary calendars may be at a disadvantage.
Considering that the legislative session broke down over Speaker Tom Craddick's rule over the House, it is worth considering whether his autocratic style may play a key role in Texas' loss of power. Had these fights not occurred, the legislation changing the date may have gone forward.
Houston, Harris County and the Texas Leg.
The Houston Chronicle calls the recently completed session great for the city.
Among the highlights:
- the toll road moratorium will not affect six on going projects in the county.
- money was set aside for the purchase of 20 undeveloped wooded acres in order to turn it into a park.
- red light cameras were approved, but restricted.
In what is certainly good news for The Woodlands, an agreement between the area (not incorporated as of yet) and Houston was reached where they will enter a partnership that will prevent it's annexation into the city. This may be a first for Houston, I don't know.
Efforts to limit the city's ability to regulate out of town polluters whose pollution drifts into the city dies also, though their efforts are likely to continue.
The story raises interesting issues concerning the relationship between the city and the county. Their interests and politics do not always coincide.
Among the highlights:
- the toll road moratorium will not affect six on going projects in the county.
- money was set aside for the purchase of 20 undeveloped wooded acres in order to turn it into a park.
- red light cameras were approved, but restricted.
In what is certainly good news for The Woodlands, an agreement between the area (not incorporated as of yet) and Houston was reached where they will enter a partnership that will prevent it's annexation into the city. This may be a first for Houston, I don't know.
Efforts to limit the city's ability to regulate out of town polluters whose pollution drifts into the city dies also, though their efforts are likely to continue.
The story raises interesting issues concerning the relationship between the city and the county. Their interests and politics do not always coincide.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Most Important Issues
According to the most recent Gallup Poll, these are the top responses they received from a representative sample of the American population when asked: "In your view, what one or two issues should be the top priorities for the president and Congress to deal with at this time?"
69%--Situation in Iraq/War
24%--Immigration/Illegal aliens
17%--Fuel/Oil prices/Lack of energy sources/The energy crisis
16%--Poor healthcare/hospitals; high cost of healthcare
10%--Economy in general
4%--Education/Poor education/Access to education
4%--Terrorism
3%--Environment/Pollution
3%--National security
3%--Federal budget deficit/Federal debt
3%--Social Security
2%--Unemployment/Jobs
1%--Taxes
1%--Poverty/Hunger/Homelessness
1%--Lack of money
1%--International issues/problems
1%--Medicare
1%--Foreign aid/Focus overseas
1%--War/Conflict in the Middle East
1%--Abortion
The answers are open ended, meaning that they weren't given a list to choose from. Respondents picked whatever happened to be on their minds when they were asked. Gallup points out that though both Republicans and Democrats cite Iraq as being important, Republicans are twice as likely to mention immigration and Democrats twice as likely to say healthcare.
69%--Situation in Iraq/War
24%--Immigration/Illegal aliens
17%--Fuel/Oil prices/Lack of energy sources/The energy crisis
16%--Poor healthcare/hospitals; high cost of healthcare
10%--Economy in general
4%--Education/Poor education/Access to education
4%--Terrorism
3%--Environment/Pollution
3%--National security
3%--Federal budget deficit/Federal debt
3%--Social Security
2%--Unemployment/Jobs
1%--Taxes
1%--Poverty/Hunger/Homelessness
1%--Lack of money
1%--International issues/problems
1%--Medicare
1%--Foreign aid/Focus overseas
1%--War/Conflict in the Middle East
1%--Abortion
The answers are open ended, meaning that they weren't given a list to choose from. Respondents picked whatever happened to be on their minds when they were asked. Gallup points out that though both Republicans and Democrats cite Iraq as being important, Republicans are twice as likely to mention immigration and Democrats twice as likely to say healthcare.
How Democracy Works in the United States
It all begins with the fact that we are a system of separated powers composed of four distinct institutions connected to the population in unique ways (at least that was the original intent).
In the recent Ledbetter case the Supreme Court, composed of individuals with life terms selected by presidents and confirmed by Senates dating back to mid 1970s, adopted a narrow definition of discrimination that disallowed a law suit alleging gender discrimination in pay.
They are free from the direct control of the electorate, but are bound by the laws they interpret. In her dissent Ginsburg stated that "the ball is in Congress' court" and they can change the law, which the Democratic majority seems likely to do. In all likelihood this law will be vetoed by the president since the business community is justifiably concerned that an expanded definition of discrimination would lead to more law suits. Democrats just barely control both chambers of Congress, so unless they get a good handful of Republican votes, they will be unable to override the veto. This will be an interesting test of the ability of Republicans to stay cohesive. Individual members will have to weigh the attitudes of their constituents--including the potential loss of female votes--against the preferences and strength of their party.
If this plays out, then this could easily become a election issue in 2008 with Republicans arguing that civil rights remedies for gender discrimination must be limited and Democrats arguing the opposite. This will certainly not be the only issue that voters will have to consider, but it will surely be in the mix.
Confused? Then you're paying attention.
In the recent Ledbetter case the Supreme Court, composed of individuals with life terms selected by presidents and confirmed by Senates dating back to mid 1970s, adopted a narrow definition of discrimination that disallowed a law suit alleging gender discrimination in pay.
They are free from the direct control of the electorate, but are bound by the laws they interpret. In her dissent Ginsburg stated that "the ball is in Congress' court" and they can change the law, which the Democratic majority seems likely to do. In all likelihood this law will be vetoed by the president since the business community is justifiably concerned that an expanded definition of discrimination would lead to more law suits. Democrats just barely control both chambers of Congress, so unless they get a good handful of Republican votes, they will be unable to override the veto. This will be an interesting test of the ability of Republicans to stay cohesive. Individual members will have to weigh the attitudes of their constituents--including the potential loss of female votes--against the preferences and strength of their party.
If this plays out, then this could easily become a election issue in 2008 with Republicans arguing that civil rights remedies for gender discrimination must be limited and Democrats arguing the opposite. This will certainly not be the only issue that voters will have to consider, but it will surely be in the mix.
Confused? Then you're paying attention.
He's Back
Dr. Jack Kerhorkian is out of jail after 8 years. He was sent to jail partly because the state does not recognize a constitutionally guaranteed right to die.
It is appropriate to ask: So what?
In 2301 we will be covering the Constitution and the conflict that led to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights (topics we will also hit in 2302 when we discuss the judiciary), which the Federalist thought made no sense since it restricted the national government from doing things that it was not allowed to do in the first place--the expressed powers of government--and that did not list all the potential freedoms people may claim as their own.
From the Nehemiah Institute:
How would we know? Is it worth considering whether the right to die is the type of right that the founders might have thought was reasonable, or whether they considered future generations to be capable of determining for themselves whether or not it ought to be?
Is the right to die a right retained by the people? I want my 2301 students to be prepared to discuss this fully in class.
It is appropriate to ask: So what?
In 2301 we will be covering the Constitution and the conflict that led to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights (topics we will also hit in 2302 when we discuss the judiciary), which the Federalist thought made no sense since it restricted the national government from doing things that it was not allowed to do in the first place--the expressed powers of government--and that did not list all the potential freedoms people may claim as their own.
From the Nehemiah Institute:
"...it is impossible to name every right possessed by individualLet's apply this to the conflict regarding the right to die. It's not clearly protected in the Constitution, but could it be properly considered to be one of the "certain rights . . . retained by the people?"
human beings. James Wilson commented on this to a meeting
of Pennsylvania citizens. He said, "Enumerate all the rights
of men? I am sure that no gentleman in the late convention
would have attempted such a thing." The founders feared
that naming a few rights of man in a bill of rights would lead
people to believe those were his only rights, in exclusion of
ll others. Noah Webster sarcastically proposed this clause to
complete the list of unalienable rights, "'that Congress shall
never restrain any inhabitant of America from eating and
drinking, at seasonable times, or prevent his lying on his left
side, in a long winter's night, or even on his back, when he is
fatigued by lying on his right." In an attempt to prevent this
misunderstanding, Amendment 9 was inserted into the
Constitution. It says, "The enumeration in the Constitution
of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people."
How would we know? Is it worth considering whether the right to die is the type of right that the founders might have thought was reasonable, or whether they considered future generations to be capable of determining for themselves whether or not it ought to be?
Is the right to die a right retained by the people? I want my 2301 students to be prepared to discuss this fully in class.
Friday, June 1, 2007
2302 pre test results
Here are the pre test results for my 2302's. This class covers the three branches of government and the basics of public policy. This is what they (or you) know in the aggregate. 35 students in two classes took the test.
What they know:
- Most courts cases are heard in state and local courts (97%)
- The framers created a unitary executive in order to provide for energetic government (92%)
- The president is elected by an electoral college (86%)
- The term of a member of the House of Representatives is two years (83%)
- The president is the highest military authority in the U.S. (80%)
What they don't:
- Parties to a court case must demonstrate that they have standing in orde for the case to be heard (26%)
- The primary task of the bureaucracy is implementation (28%)
- Once the rules of a federal agency are approved they have the force of law (28%)
- Congressional activities such as the use of public hearings to ask questions of bureaucratic agencies are called oversight (32%)
- The case of Marbury v. Madison established the power of judicial review (38%)
comments?
What they know:
- Most courts cases are heard in state and local courts (97%)
- The framers created a unitary executive in order to provide for energetic government (92%)
- The president is elected by an electoral college (86%)
- The term of a member of the House of Representatives is two years (83%)
- The president is the highest military authority in the U.S. (80%)
What they don't:
- Parties to a court case must demonstrate that they have standing in orde for the case to be heard (26%)
- The primary task of the bureaucracy is implementation (28%)
- Once the rules of a federal agency are approved they have the force of law (28%)
- Congressional activities such as the use of public hearings to ask questions of bureaucratic agencies are called oversight (32%)
- The case of Marbury v. Madison established the power of judicial review (38%)
comments?
About Those Voters
Back in grad school days, one of the biggest controversies in the political science literature concerned the nature of the electorate.
Are they rational or irrational?
When one traced the debate it became obvious that the pendulum swung back and forth. Last I remember, the electorate--if not the individual voter--was considered rational.
Apparently they (we) are now considered irrational.
Are they rational or irrational?
When one traced the debate it became obvious that the pendulum swung back and forth. Last I remember, the electorate--if not the individual voter--was considered rational.
Apparently they (we) are now considered irrational.
A Republican Crackup?
Peggy Noonan, Reagan's speechwriter, adds her voice to the chorus claiming that Bush Administration policies are tearing apart the Republican coalition.
In a two party system, parties are only competitive if they bring various factions together under their umbrella. The Democrats did it under FDR. It was called the New Deal Coalition and it dominated politics for three or four decades. The loss of key elements of that coalition to the Republicans led to the formation of the Reagan Coalition which became dominant thereafter. Groups that had become predictable Republican supporters (such as libertarians) are becoming more independent, if not outright supporters of Democrats.
Karl Rove apparently disagrees with this assessment and predicts that the future still looks bright for his party. The proliferation of internet businesses will lead those business owners into the Republican pro-business, low taxes camp. And more Americans claim to be religiously evangelical, and they tend ot vote Republican.
A recent book outlines Roves efforts to continue adding to the Republican rolls. Three specific policies were designed to peel away groups that continued to vote for Democrats. Pro-Israel policies were meant to lure Jews, anti-gay rights policies were focused on evangelical African Americans, and anti-abortion and stem cell policies were intended to attract the support of Catholics.
Critics argue that the continued expansion of government (No Child Left Behind and Medicare), corruption and bungled efforts in Iraq and in the follow up to Katrina have undermined these efforts. Evangelicals also seem suspicious that Republicans talk the talk but do not follow up with actions that back up the talk.
This is worth monitoring.
In a two party system, parties are only competitive if they bring various factions together under their umbrella. The Democrats did it under FDR. It was called the New Deal Coalition and it dominated politics for three or four decades. The loss of key elements of that coalition to the Republicans led to the formation of the Reagan Coalition which became dominant thereafter. Groups that had become predictable Republican supporters (such as libertarians) are becoming more independent, if not outright supporters of Democrats.
Karl Rove apparently disagrees with this assessment and predicts that the future still looks bright for his party. The proliferation of internet businesses will lead those business owners into the Republican pro-business, low taxes camp. And more Americans claim to be religiously evangelical, and they tend ot vote Republican.
A recent book outlines Roves efforts to continue adding to the Republican rolls. Three specific policies were designed to peel away groups that continued to vote for Democrats. Pro-Israel policies were meant to lure Jews, anti-gay rights policies were focused on evangelical African Americans, and anti-abortion and stem cell policies were intended to attract the support of Catholics.
Critics argue that the continued expansion of government (No Child Left Behind and Medicare), corruption and bungled efforts in Iraq and in the follow up to Katrina have undermined these efforts. Evangelicals also seem suspicious that Republicans talk the talk but do not follow up with actions that back up the talk.
This is worth monitoring.
It's on!
Even the most hard core Democrat must admit that Nick Lampson's victory in last year's race for the Texas 22nd congressional district was a fluke. Tom DeLay though he could manipulate the race by placing a chosen successor on the ballot (not so said the courts--an example of a judicial check on legislative power). So Lampson ran against fill in the blank, and won.
Good for him.
The problem is that he only barely won and small majority of the residents of the district call themselves Republican. No surprise then that Lampson is a target (#1 according to Karl Rove) and a large group of Republicans are lining up to challenge him. First of course they have to fight each other to become the party's nominee.
The Chron lists the following as likely candidates:
- Robert Talton
- Dean Hrbacek
- Pete Olson
- Charlie Howard
- John Zerwas
- Larry Taylor
- and of course: Shelley Sekula-Gibbs
Most are currently serving in the Texas Legislature and are obviously looking for career advancement. Olson doesn't have much of a web presence, but has worked for John Cornym and Phil Gramm so he is well connected.
The Chron tells us that Lampson is--very predictably--relying on his skills as a veteran pork producer to persuade the voters that they should keep him in office. Not a bad point if Democrats retain the majority in 2008. Early betting predicts they will, but who knows how things may turn?
I stumbled across this blog that covers the 22nd district from a Democrat's perspective. I'll hunt down more--join in the search if you can.