Saturday, April 30, 2011
Internet Lets a Criminal Past Catch Up Quicker
From the NYT:
The pool of Americans seeking jobs includes more people with criminal histories than ever before, a legacy in part of stiffer sentencing and increased enforcement for nonviolent crimes like drug offenses, criminal justice experts said. And each year, more than 700,000 people are released from state and federal prisons, a total that is expected to grow as states try to reduce the fiscal burden of their overcrowded penal institutions.
Almost 65 million Americans have some type of criminal record, either for an arrest or a conviction, according to a recent report by the National Employment Law Project, whose policy co-director, Maurice Emsellem, says that the figure is probably an underestimate.
This is a touchy area for civil rights:
There is no federal law that prohibits discrimination against people with criminal records. But the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has set guidelines on how employers can use such records. Because African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities have higher rates of criminal convictions, a blanket policy that screens out anyone with a criminal history will discriminate against these groups, the commission says, and is unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The E.E.O.C. has been a plaintiff in several lawsuits over background checks, and the guidelines have led to a raft of lawsuits against companies under Title VII — at least seven are working their way through the courts. One, brought by the commission against Peoplemark, an employment agency, was dismissed because the commission was not able to provide expert evidence to back up the discrimination claim.
The pool of Americans seeking jobs includes more people with criminal histories than ever before, a legacy in part of stiffer sentencing and increased enforcement for nonviolent crimes like drug offenses, criminal justice experts said. And each year, more than 700,000 people are released from state and federal prisons, a total that is expected to grow as states try to reduce the fiscal burden of their overcrowded penal institutions.
Almost 65 million Americans have some type of criminal record, either for an arrest or a conviction, according to a recent report by the National Employment Law Project, whose policy co-director, Maurice Emsellem, says that the figure is probably an underestimate.
This is a touchy area for civil rights:
There is no federal law that prohibits discrimination against people with criminal records. But the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has set guidelines on how employers can use such records. Because African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities have higher rates of criminal convictions, a blanket policy that screens out anyone with a criminal history will discriminate against these groups, the commission says, and is unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The E.E.O.C. has been a plaintiff in several lawsuits over background checks, and the guidelines have led to a raft of lawsuits against companies under Title VII — at least seven are working their way through the courts. One, brought by the commission against Peoplemark, an employment agency, was dismissed because the commission was not able to provide expert evidence to back up the discrimination claim.
Defiant Galveston city manager gets the ax
From the Chron:
The 14-year-term of powerful City Manager Steve LeBlanc, who became a face of Galveston's recovery after Hurricane Ike, ended Wednesday during an acrimonious City Council meeting in which police ejected several rowdy Le-Blanc supporters.
A divided council voted 5-2 to fire a defiant LeBlanc after several said the city manager had damaged his relations with the council too severely because of his public criticisms of council members and his political efforts to save his job leading up to the special meeting. The council appointed Assistant City Managers Carolyn Cox and Brian Maxwell as co-acting city managers.
The 14-year-term of powerful City Manager Steve LeBlanc, who became a face of Galveston's recovery after Hurricane Ike, ended Wednesday during an acrimonious City Council meeting in which police ejected several rowdy Le-Blanc supporters.
A divided council voted 5-2 to fire a defiant LeBlanc after several said the city manager had damaged his relations with the council too severely because of his public criticisms of council members and his political efforts to save his job leading up to the special meeting. The council appointed Assistant City Managers Carolyn Cox and Brian Maxwell as co-acting city managers.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Obama for Queen
Obama for Queen
This is a pretty fascinating take on the current condition - the constitutional status - of the monarchy in Britain.
This is a pretty fascinating take on the current condition - the constitutional status - of the monarchy in Britain.
A State Manager Takes Over and Cuts What a City Can’t
Michigan takes over one of its cities:
Every first and third Monday of the month for as long as anyone can remember, this city’s elected commissioners have gathered in their musty second-floor chambers to contend with issues large and small — reports of gaping potholes, proposals to sell city land, an annual budget plan.
But as of this month, they are literally powerless, and hold no authority to make any decisions. Not even on potholes.
The city is now run by Joseph L. Harris, an accountant and auditor from miles away, one of a small cadre of “emergency managers” dispatched like firefighters by the state to put out financial blazes in Michigan’s most troubled cities.
Every first and third Monday of the month for as long as anyone can remember, this city’s elected commissioners have gathered in their musty second-floor chambers to contend with issues large and small — reports of gaping potholes, proposals to sell city land, an annual budget plan.
But as of this month, they are literally powerless, and hold no authority to make any decisions. Not even on potholes.
The city is now run by Joseph L. Harris, an accountant and auditor from miles away, one of a small cadre of “emergency managers” dispatched like firefighters by the state to put out financial blazes in Michigan’s most troubled cities.
Supreme Court Allows Contracts Forbidding Class-Action Arbitration
The Supreme Court continues to make class action lawsuits more difficult to move forward. The case is AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.
From the NYT:
Businesses may use standard-form contracts to forbid consumers claiming fraud from banding together in a single arbitration, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a 5-to-4 decision that split along ideological lines.
Though the decision concerned arbitrations, it appeared to provide businesses with a way to avoid class-action lawsuits in court. All they need do, the decision suggested, is use standard-form contracts that require two things: that disputes be raised only through the informal mechanism of arbitration and that claims be brought one by one.
“The decision basically lets companies escape class actions, so long as they do so by means of arbitration agreements,” Brian T. Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, said. “This is a game-changer for businesses. It’s one of the most important and favorable cases for businesses in a very long time.”
The decision fits in with recent rulings that have favored arbitrations and been wary of aspects of class actions.
From the NYT:
Businesses may use standard-form contracts to forbid consumers claiming fraud from banding together in a single arbitration, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a 5-to-4 decision that split along ideological lines.
Though the decision concerned arbitrations, it appeared to provide businesses with a way to avoid class-action lawsuits in court. All they need do, the decision suggested, is use standard-form contracts that require two things: that disputes be raised only through the informal mechanism of arbitration and that claims be brought one by one.
“The decision basically lets companies escape class actions, so long as they do so by means of arbitration agreements,” Brian T. Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, said. “This is a game-changer for businesses. It’s one of the most important and favorable cases for businesses in a very long time.”
The decision fits in with recent rulings that have favored arbitrations and been wary of aspects of class actions.
House G.O.P. Members Face Voter Anger Over Budget
Here's evidence that U.S. House Republicans are facing at least some of the anger that House Democrats faced in townhall meetings in the previous session. The concerns seniors had over the impact health care reform would have on Medicare have resurfaced again, but this tome over Paul Ryan's budget proposals.
There appears to a caveat however. Ryan's plans only impact Medicare for those under 55. The question will be whether the elderly will accept those changes as long as their coverage is steady. This seems to pit the old against the young, but it may work politically:
The proposed new approach to Medicare — a centerpiece of a budget that Republican leaders have hailed as a courageous effort to address the nation’s long-term fiscal problems — has been a constant topic at town-hall-style sessions and other public gatherings during a two-week Congressional recess that provided the first chance for lawmakers to gauge reaction to the plan.
An example of the response came Tuesday as Representative Daniel Webster, a freshman Republican from Florida, faced an unruly crowd at a packed town meeting in Orlando, where some attendees, apparently organized or encouraged by liberal groups, brandished signs like “Hands Off Medicare” and demanded that he instead “tax the rich.”
Mr. Webster, shown in video from station WFTV, sought to defuse the situation by telling constituents that any changes were years away and that current retirees would not see a difference. “Not one senior citizen is harmed by this budget,” he said, noting that his new granddaughter was “looking at a bankrupt country.”
There appears to a caveat however. Ryan's plans only impact Medicare for those under 55. The question will be whether the elderly will accept those changes as long as their coverage is steady. This seems to pit the old against the young, but it may work politically:
The proposed new approach to Medicare — a centerpiece of a budget that Republican leaders have hailed as a courageous effort to address the nation’s long-term fiscal problems — has been a constant topic at town-hall-style sessions and other public gatherings during a two-week Congressional recess that provided the first chance for lawmakers to gauge reaction to the plan.
An example of the response came Tuesday as Representative Daniel Webster, a freshman Republican from Florida, faced an unruly crowd at a packed town meeting in Orlando, where some attendees, apparently organized or encouraged by liberal groups, brandished signs like “Hands Off Medicare” and demanded that he instead “tax the rich.”
Mr. Webster, shown in video from station WFTV, sought to defuse the situation by telling constituents that any changes were years away and that current retirees would not see a difference. “Not one senior citizen is harmed by this budget,” he said, noting that his new granddaughter was “looking at a bankrupt country.”
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
A Time for Radical Centrists
Edward Glaeser wonders if the current political environment might lead to a break out of centrist politics. He points out an unfortunate reality of politics: Rational, common sense, centrist politics are unexciting:
Our best hope is that the collision between the Tea Party and the Obama administration will explode into some serious centrism. Just as the strange cocktail of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich produced welfare reform in 1996 and a significant decline in the gross debt, to 57 percent of G.D.P. from 67 percent, the political conflict between President Obama and the Republican-controlled House seems to have created some fiscal seriousness from both parties.
Political energy rarely comes from middle. It’s easy to understand why millions of Americans could get passionate about the more generous, more just country offered by progressives from Theodore Roosevelt onward. It’s also easy to understand the passionate desire for freedom that inspired the original Tea Party and its current incarnation.
But currently, our nation needs something that doesn’t conjure a crowd so readily: common sense. We need the spirit of nation-building centrists, like Washington and Eisenhower. We need the middle way described in the Bowles-Simpson budget plan, but that middle way needs to tear off the green-eyeshade approach to budgeting and wrap itself in red, white and blue, for it is America’s best hope.
Our best hope is that the collision between the Tea Party and the Obama administration will explode into some serious centrism. Just as the strange cocktail of Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich produced welfare reform in 1996 and a significant decline in the gross debt, to 57 percent of G.D.P. from 67 percent, the political conflict between President Obama and the Republican-controlled House seems to have created some fiscal seriousness from both parties.
Political energy rarely comes from middle. It’s easy to understand why millions of Americans could get passionate about the more generous, more just country offered by progressives from Theodore Roosevelt onward. It’s also easy to understand the passionate desire for freedom that inspired the original Tea Party and its current incarnation.
But currently, our nation needs something that doesn’t conjure a crowd so readily: common sense. We need the spirit of nation-building centrists, like Washington and Eisenhower. We need the middle way described in the Bowles-Simpson budget plan, but that middle way needs to tear off the green-eyeshade approach to budgeting and wrap itself in red, white and blue, for it is America’s best hope.
Justices Reject Request for Fast Health Law Ruling
This is major news from the NYT:
The Supreme Court on Monday turned back an unusual request from Virginia to put the state’s challenge to the new federal health care law on a fast track. The court’s one-line order offered no reasoning, and there were no noted dissenting votes.
Nor was there any indication that any justices had disqualified themselves from the case. The court’s practice is to note such recusals, and it now appears almost certain that all nine justices will hear cases challenging the law when they reach the court in the ordinary course, probably in the term that starts in October.
The Supreme Court on Monday turned back an unusual request from Virginia to put the state’s challenge to the new federal health care law on a fast track. The court’s one-line order offered no reasoning, and there were no noted dissenting votes.
Nor was there any indication that any justices had disqualified themselves from the case. The court’s practice is to note such recusals, and it now appears almost certain that all nine justices will hear cases challenging the law when they reach the court in the ordinary course, probably in the term that starts in October.
Why Republicans May Be Skipping 2012 Presidential Run
Micheal Shear offers five reasons why many Republicans are skipping the 2012 presidential race:
This one sticks out to me:
4. The Tea Party. The emergence of the Tea Party movement as a force inside the Republican Party requires potential presidential candidates to pick sides in an intraparty philosophical struggle. The risks are clear for some Republicans who may have to alter or modify earlier positions to get through a contentious primary. Less clear are the benefits of having that support during a general election, especially if it means alienating independents in the process. Some of the most high-profile Tea Party candidates in 2010 did not fare so well in the general election.
This one sticks out to me:
4. The Tea Party. The emergence of the Tea Party movement as a force inside the Republican Party requires potential presidential candidates to pick sides in an intraparty philosophical struggle. The risks are clear for some Republicans who may have to alter or modify earlier positions to get through a contentious primary. Less clear are the benefits of having that support during a general election, especially if it means alienating independents in the process. Some of the most high-profile Tea Party candidates in 2010 did not fare so well in the general election.
Hamiltonian America
The Economist has a brief appreciative note about Alexander Hamilton, and points out his influence on America:
. . . America today almost certainly—as futile as this thought experiment admittedly is—conforms to Hamilton’s vision much more than to Jefferson’s.
America is a cosmopolitan, commercial and industrial place (as Hamilton envisioned), not an agrarian land of yeoman farmers untouched by the corrupting influence of banks and brokers (as Jefferson wanted). It has long since banned slavery, as Hamilton always thought it should, but as Jefferson and Madison, among other southerners, dared not contemplate.
Indeed, a list of Hamilton’s legacies—first Treasury secretary, founder of "Wall Street" and American central banking, founder of the Coast Guard, visionary of capitalism and governmental checks and balances—inevitably shortchanges his overall impact. In everything but title he really was America's first and most important prime minister.
. . . America today almost certainly—as futile as this thought experiment admittedly is—conforms to Hamilton’s vision much more than to Jefferson’s.
America is a cosmopolitan, commercial and industrial place (as Hamilton envisioned), not an agrarian land of yeoman farmers untouched by the corrupting influence of banks and brokers (as Jefferson wanted). It has long since banned slavery, as Hamilton always thought it should, but as Jefferson and Madison, among other southerners, dared not contemplate.
Indeed, a list of Hamilton’s legacies—first Treasury secretary, founder of "Wall Street" and American central banking, founder of the Coast Guard, visionary of capitalism and governmental checks and balances—inevitably shortchanges his overall impact. In everything but title he really was America's first and most important prime minister.
Taxing the Rich, Over Time
David Leonhardt explains why the wealthy are paying a larger share of taxes despite having increasingly lower tax rates:
In brief, tax rates for the wealthy have fallen more than for other income groups. Tax rates for the very wealthy have fallen more than they have for the merely wealthy. Incomes at the top have also increased much more quickly than incomes have for other groups.
Add it all up, and you can see why the wealthy are paying a greater share of federal taxes even though they are paying less tax on each dollar they earn. They’re simply making many more dollars than they used to.
In brief, tax rates for the wealthy have fallen more than for other income groups. Tax rates for the very wealthy have fallen more than they have for the merely wealthy. Incomes at the top have also increased much more quickly than incomes have for other groups.
Add it all up, and you can see why the wealthy are paying a greater share of federal taxes even though they are paying less tax on each dollar they earn. They’re simply making many more dollars than they used to.
Monday, April 25, 2011
The Battle for Abilene on the Senate Map
From the NYT, an insider's account of conflict over where to draw state senate district lines:
Twenty years ago, a young state representative from Big Spring — a Republican in a Texas House then dominated by Democrats — found himself, via redistricting, in a race against a veteran Democrat.
The Democrat, David Counts, was a committee chairman and a member of the leadership, and the district was drawn in a way that favored him and put the Republican in the shadows.
Facing certain electoral death in the House contest, Troy Fraser decided to run instead for the State Senate. He lost and went home.
Mr. Fraser now lives in Horseshoe Bay, in Central Texas. He’s still a Republican, but now he’s a state senator, a seat he won four years after that 1992 loss. He’s a committee chairman and a member of the leadership. But he’s in another redistricting battle — this time with another Republican and based more on what part of the state is shrinking than on politics.
This time, it’s all about Abilene. It’s the secret to Mr. Fraser’s political strength in his largely rural district, but it’s also a logical remedy to the shortage of population in an adjoining district represented by Senator Robert L. Duncan, Republican of Lubbock.
Twenty years ago, a young state representative from Big Spring — a Republican in a Texas House then dominated by Democrats — found himself, via redistricting, in a race against a veteran Democrat.
The Democrat, David Counts, was a committee chairman and a member of the leadership, and the district was drawn in a way that favored him and put the Republican in the shadows.
Facing certain electoral death in the House contest, Troy Fraser decided to run instead for the State Senate. He lost and went home.
Mr. Fraser now lives in Horseshoe Bay, in Central Texas. He’s still a Republican, but now he’s a state senator, a seat he won four years after that 1992 loss. He’s a committee chairman and a member of the leadership. But he’s in another redistricting battle — this time with another Republican and based more on what part of the state is shrinking than on politics.
This time, it’s all about Abilene. It’s the secret to Mr. Fraser’s political strength in his largely rural district, but it’s also a logical remedy to the shortage of population in an adjoining district represented by Senator Robert L. Duncan, Republican of Lubbock.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Two Noted Journalists Killed in Libya
From the Daily Beast:
Prize-winning photojournalist Tim Hetherington died in Misrata, Libya on Wednesday, Vanity Fair has confirmed. The news was broken on fellow photographer Andre Liohn’s Facebook page, and Liohn is reportedly at the hospital. Chris Hondros, a photographer with him, died hours later from a severe head injury.
Hetheringon, 41 and born in Britain, shot both still photos and video, and worked from Liberia, Sudan, and other war zones. In 2010, he made the documentary Restrepo with journalist Sebastian Junger. The film, which chronicled a year in the life of an American infantry platoon stationed deep in the remote, dangerous Korengal Valley, was nominated for the Oscar for Best Documentary. Hetherington wrote about the experience for The Daily Beast in 2010. His last Tweet, sent Tuesday, was: "In besieged Libyan city of Misrata. Indiscriminate shelling by Qaddafi forces. No sign of NATO."
Hondros shoot this image of a soldier in Liberia just after he fired off a rocket. I had it pinned to my door for years.
Prize-winning photojournalist Tim Hetherington died in Misrata, Libya on Wednesday, Vanity Fair has confirmed. The news was broken on fellow photographer Andre Liohn’s Facebook page, and Liohn is reportedly at the hospital. Chris Hondros, a photographer with him, died hours later from a severe head injury.
Hetheringon, 41 and born in Britain, shot both still photos and video, and worked from Liberia, Sudan, and other war zones. In 2010, he made the documentary Restrepo with journalist Sebastian Junger. The film, which chronicled a year in the life of an American infantry platoon stationed deep in the remote, dangerous Korengal Valley, was nominated for the Oscar for Best Documentary. Hetherington wrote about the experience for The Daily Beast in 2010. His last Tweet, sent Tuesday, was: "In besieged Libyan city of Misrata. Indiscriminate shelling by Qaddafi forces. No sign of NATO."
Hondros shoot this image of a soldier in Liberia just after he fired off a rocket. I had it pinned to my door for years.
Blame Game: Has the green movement been a miserable flop?
The New Republic has a story touching on a point we're making this week in 2301, the weakness of the environmental movement as opposed to the business lobby.
Is Theodore Roosevelt Overrated?
You need a subscription to read this whole story, but it challenges - or at least tries to put into context - the high ratings Theodore Roosevelt tends to receive from historians. As we mentioned in 2302, historians seem to have a bias in favor of people who give them juicy things to write about - and no one did that better than TR - but maybe this bias is unwarranted.
From the story's intro:
The reputation of Theodore Roosevelt has become as bloated as the man himself. No one of course can deny his fundamental significance in American history, as a central player in the transitions from republic to empire, laissez-faire to regulated capitalism, congressional government to imperial presidency. It should come as no surprise that professional historians still pay close attention to his career. What is surprising is the cult-like status that Roosevelt enjoys outside the academy, especially in Washington. In political discourse, his name evokes bipartisan affection, bordering on reverence; few presidents are safer for politicians of either party to cite as an inspiration. (Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both claimed him as a model.) For several decades now, hardly a year has gone by without another PBS documentary or popular biography producing another brick in the ascending tower of tribute. Not bad for a man who, despite his undeniable bravery and public spirit, spent much of his life behaving like a bully, drunk on his own self-regard. How does one account for the contemporary adulation of this man?
The emergence of the T.R. cult coincided with the ascendancy of Ronald Reagan. “America is back!” Reagan announced, reassuring his audiences that the national soul-searching of the Carter years was officially at an end. No more congressional inquiries into CIA crimes and imperial deceit; no more presidential admonitions about the need to recognize environmental limits. Cowboy capitalism and triumphalist nationalism were the order of the day. Rhetoricians of renewed national greatness, groping for historical antecedents, seized on the example of Theodore Roosevelt.
For the Republican right, the appropriation of Roosevelt was a tricky business. Free-market ideologues had to overlook his achievements in domestic policy, where at his best he re-asserted the claims of commonwealth against wealth, protecting wilderness from rapacious developers and disentangling Washington from its thralldom to Wall Street. But T.R.’s foreign policy perfectly suited the right-wing agenda. Driven by myopic imperial ambitions, a visceral longing for violent combat, and an obsessive need for action, he poisoned the diplomatic atmosphere with militaristic bluster throughout his career, from his advocacy of war with Spain in 1898 to his demands for American intervention in World War I and his final, furtive efforts to undermine Woodrow Wilson’s agenda at the Paris Peace Conference. He preferred doing to thinking and fighting to talking—much like the recent Decider-in-Chief.
From the story's intro:
The reputation of Theodore Roosevelt has become as bloated as the man himself. No one of course can deny his fundamental significance in American history, as a central player in the transitions from republic to empire, laissez-faire to regulated capitalism, congressional government to imperial presidency. It should come as no surprise that professional historians still pay close attention to his career. What is surprising is the cult-like status that Roosevelt enjoys outside the academy, especially in Washington. In political discourse, his name evokes bipartisan affection, bordering on reverence; few presidents are safer for politicians of either party to cite as an inspiration. (Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both claimed him as a model.) For several decades now, hardly a year has gone by without another PBS documentary or popular biography producing another brick in the ascending tower of tribute. Not bad for a man who, despite his undeniable bravery and public spirit, spent much of his life behaving like a bully, drunk on his own self-regard. How does one account for the contemporary adulation of this man?
The emergence of the T.R. cult coincided with the ascendancy of Ronald Reagan. “America is back!” Reagan announced, reassuring his audiences that the national soul-searching of the Carter years was officially at an end. No more congressional inquiries into CIA crimes and imperial deceit; no more presidential admonitions about the need to recognize environmental limits. Cowboy capitalism and triumphalist nationalism were the order of the day. Rhetoricians of renewed national greatness, groping for historical antecedents, seized on the example of Theodore Roosevelt.
For the Republican right, the appropriation of Roosevelt was a tricky business. Free-market ideologues had to overlook his achievements in domestic policy, where at his best he re-asserted the claims of commonwealth against wealth, protecting wilderness from rapacious developers and disentangling Washington from its thralldom to Wall Street. But T.R.’s foreign policy perfectly suited the right-wing agenda. Driven by myopic imperial ambitions, a visceral longing for violent combat, and an obsessive need for action, he poisoned the diplomatic atmosphere with militaristic bluster throughout his career, from his advocacy of war with Spain in 1898 to his demands for American intervention in World War I and his final, furtive efforts to undermine Woodrow Wilson’s agenda at the Paris Peace Conference. He preferred doing to thinking and fighting to talking—much like the recent Decider-in-Chief.
The Endless Search for Perfect Governance - Dave McNeely
Here are one man's thoughts on how state agencies ought to structured. This fills in some detail we didn't touch in 2302
State Boards: More Members? Less? Appoint? Elect?
DAVE McNEELY COLUMN FOR 4/21/11.
The search never seems to end to find the perfect administrative structure for the state's boards and commissions to oversee some of the state's activities.
Here's just a few of the changes being discussed:
-- Rep. Burt Solomons, R-Carrollton, is talking about increasing the size of the 15-member State Board of Education, because each member represents twice as many people as a state senator.
-- There's a move on to reduce the board of the Texas Department of Transportation from five appointed members to a single commissioner, to provide buck-stops-here accountability.
-- The Sunset Advisory Commission has endorsed reducing the three-member elective Texas Railroad Commission to a single commissioner.
Some want to elect the commissioner, while others want the job filled by gubernatorial appointment, subject to approval by two-thirds of the Texas Senate.
A problem with three-member commissions is that they can run afoul of the Texas Open Meetings law. If two commissioners are in the restroom at the same time, that's a quorum, and thus should be an open meeting.
That was one reason TxDOT's commission was increased from three members to five a few years ago – so that two commissioners could have a conversation without violating the law. Another reason was to allow more regional representation.
The Railroad Commission, you may know, no longer regulates railroads. It regulates the oil and gas industry.
In politics, it has often provided an opportune launching pad to seek another statewide office. It provides a podium and a reason to move around the state, and it's a good place to raise money.
Its six-year term also can allow its members to run for another office without risking their seat on the commission.
That was the successful route followed by Democrat John Sharp to win the office of state comptroller in 1990. Republican Carole Keeton Strayhorn did the same thing in 1998.
Other Railroad Commission members who have sought other offices include Democrat Buddy Temple for governor in 1982; Republican Kent Hance for governor in 1990; Democrat Bob Krueger for U.S. Senate in 1993; and Republican Barry Williamson for attorney general in 1998. They all lost.
The recognition that the commission can be a bullpen for other offices is underlined in the current political cycle. Two of the three Railroad Commission members – Republicans Michael Williams and Elizabeth Ames Jones – are seeking the U.S. Senate seat that Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison says she won't run for again in 2012.
As for the State Board of Education, the state's school oversight structure has traveled a winding path over the last century or so.
It's gone from a single state superintendent of schools appointed by the governor, to an elected superintendent (including the first woman ever to hold statewide elective office – Annie Webb Blanton, elected in 1918), to an elected state board of education which chose the commissioner, replaced by an appointed board, back to an elected board, all the way to, in the mid-1990s, having the governor directly select the education commissioner.
And now, the governor gets to designate which of the board members will be its chair – though the Texas Senate has turned thumbs down on one of Gov. Rick Perry's choices, and may turn down another.
The State Board of Education has been problematic ever since it was created. It was born of the Gilmer-Aikin school reforms of the late 1940s, to wire around a single elected commissioner of education.
The recommendation from the study group was a nine-member appointed board. But rural legislators feared big-city domination. So, to give better geographical representation of ideas from around the state, they called for electing one member from each of the state's congressional districts.
In the 1950s, that made for a 21-member board. By the next revamping of Texas education in 1984, Texas had gained six more members of Congress, making for a cumbersome 27-member board.
The board was reduced to 15 members appointed by the governor from individual districts. To appease legislators who thought the board should be elected, the reformers agreed to have the board revert to elective after four years.
But then-Lt. Gov. Bill Hobby and others thought the appointive board was preferable. The Legislature authorized a 1987 referendum to keep the board appointive, but it failed. Voters endorsed the return to an elective board by a 53-47 ratio, with unhappy teachers' groups providing much of the oomph behind the effort.
Legislators probably aren't real likely to make the 15-member board bigger. Some would like to abolish it altogether.
But, just as the tide goes out, and then comes back in, the rearrangements of agencies, boards and commissions, and how many members are chosen and how, and who's in charge, likely will continue as well.
State Boards: More Members? Less? Appoint? Elect?
DAVE McNEELY COLUMN FOR 4/21/11.
The search never seems to end to find the perfect administrative structure for the state's boards and commissions to oversee some of the state's activities.
Here's just a few of the changes being discussed:
-- Rep. Burt Solomons, R-Carrollton, is talking about increasing the size of the 15-member State Board of Education, because each member represents twice as many people as a state senator.
-- There's a move on to reduce the board of the Texas Department of Transportation from five appointed members to a single commissioner, to provide buck-stops-here accountability.
-- The Sunset Advisory Commission has endorsed reducing the three-member elective Texas Railroad Commission to a single commissioner.
Some want to elect the commissioner, while others want the job filled by gubernatorial appointment, subject to approval by two-thirds of the Texas Senate.
A problem with three-member commissions is that they can run afoul of the Texas Open Meetings law. If two commissioners are in the restroom at the same time, that's a quorum, and thus should be an open meeting.
That was one reason TxDOT's commission was increased from three members to five a few years ago – so that two commissioners could have a conversation without violating the law. Another reason was to allow more regional representation.
The Railroad Commission, you may know, no longer regulates railroads. It regulates the oil and gas industry.
In politics, it has often provided an opportune launching pad to seek another statewide office. It provides a podium and a reason to move around the state, and it's a good place to raise money.
Its six-year term also can allow its members to run for another office without risking their seat on the commission.
That was the successful route followed by Democrat John Sharp to win the office of state comptroller in 1990. Republican Carole Keeton Strayhorn did the same thing in 1998.
Other Railroad Commission members who have sought other offices include Democrat Buddy Temple for governor in 1982; Republican Kent Hance for governor in 1990; Democrat Bob Krueger for U.S. Senate in 1993; and Republican Barry Williamson for attorney general in 1998. They all lost.
The recognition that the commission can be a bullpen for other offices is underlined in the current political cycle. Two of the three Railroad Commission members – Republicans Michael Williams and Elizabeth Ames Jones – are seeking the U.S. Senate seat that Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison says she won't run for again in 2012.
As for the State Board of Education, the state's school oversight structure has traveled a winding path over the last century or so.
It's gone from a single state superintendent of schools appointed by the governor, to an elected superintendent (including the first woman ever to hold statewide elective office – Annie Webb Blanton, elected in 1918), to an elected state board of education which chose the commissioner, replaced by an appointed board, back to an elected board, all the way to, in the mid-1990s, having the governor directly select the education commissioner.
And now, the governor gets to designate which of the board members will be its chair – though the Texas Senate has turned thumbs down on one of Gov. Rick Perry's choices, and may turn down another.
The State Board of Education has been problematic ever since it was created. It was born of the Gilmer-Aikin school reforms of the late 1940s, to wire around a single elected commissioner of education.
The recommendation from the study group was a nine-member appointed board. But rural legislators feared big-city domination. So, to give better geographical representation of ideas from around the state, they called for electing one member from each of the state's congressional districts.
In the 1950s, that made for a 21-member board. By the next revamping of Texas education in 1984, Texas had gained six more members of Congress, making for a cumbersome 27-member board.
The board was reduced to 15 members appointed by the governor from individual districts. To appease legislators who thought the board should be elected, the reformers agreed to have the board revert to elective after four years.
But then-Lt. Gov. Bill Hobby and others thought the appointive board was preferable. The Legislature authorized a 1987 referendum to keep the board appointive, but it failed. Voters endorsed the return to an elective board by a 53-47 ratio, with unhappy teachers' groups providing much of the oomph behind the effort.
Legislators probably aren't real likely to make the 15-member board bigger. Some would like to abolish it altogether.
But, just as the tide goes out, and then comes back in, the rearrangements of agencies, boards and commissions, and how many members are chosen and how, and who's in charge, likely will continue as well.
Politicians Put Positive Spin On Budget Battle Words
From NPR:
The budget battle is all about numbers: how much the government takes in, and how much it spends. But it's also a battle over words. Both sides have put a lot of energy into coming up with new ways of describing old concepts. It's part of the process of selling their ideas to the public. At the end of the day, the budget battle is political, and both sides choose their words carefully. Democrats, for example, don't like to talk about government spending, which has a bad connotation, so they talk about making investments in the country's future. Republicans say they want to get rid of the "death tax" — also known as the estate tax.
The budget battle is all about numbers: how much the government takes in, and how much it spends. But it's also a battle over words. Both sides have put a lot of energy into coming up with new ways of describing old concepts. It's part of the process of selling their ideas to the public. At the end of the day, the budget battle is political, and both sides choose their words carefully. Democrats, for example, don't like to talk about government spending, which has a bad connotation, so they talk about making investments in the country's future. Republicans say they want to get rid of the "death tax" — also known as the estate tax.
BP: A Textbook Example Of How Not To Handle PR
From NPR:
Within hours of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, Glenn DaGian was on the phone.
He had retired a year earlier after working with BP and Amoco for 30 years. He wanted back in the game.
"Every day thereafter, for about a week, I kept saying, do you want my help, do you want my help?" he says.
DaGian watched from the sidelines as BP executives declared it was not their accident, blamed their contractors and made the company look arrogant and callous. The company's response has become a textbook example of how not to do crisis management. . . . .
Within hours of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, Glenn DaGian was on the phone.
He had retired a year earlier after working with BP and Amoco for 30 years. He wanted back in the game.
"Every day thereafter, for about a week, I kept saying, do you want my help, do you want my help?" he says.
DaGian watched from the sidelines as BP executives declared it was not their accident, blamed their contractors and made the company look arrogant and callous. The company's response has become a textbook example of how not to do crisis management. . . . .
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Public Opinion Supports the Status Quo
That's one possible take one can have from the following Ezra Klein item:
You know what’s not popular? Reforming Medicare such that beneficiaries “receive a check or voucher from the government each year for a fixed amount they can use to shop for their own private health insurance policy.” According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 65 percent of Americans oppose the idea -- about the same number who dismissed it in 1995. And if they’re told that the cost of private insurance for seniors is projected to outpace the cost of Medicare insurance for seniors -- which is exactly what CBO projects -- more than 80 percent of Americans oppose the plan.
But it’s not just sweepingly ideological reforms that are unpopular. Cutting Medicare polls poorly even if you leave out the details. Almost 80 percent of Americans oppose Medicare cuts in the abstract, while 70 percent oppose Medicaid cuts. Slightly over half of the country wants the Defense Department left alone. The only deficit-reduction option that is popular? Raising taxes on the rich. That gets the go-ahead from 72 percent of us -- though, as any budget wonk will tell you, it can’t solve anything beyond a small fraction of our fiscal problem.
Now we should watch if the same groups that supported the Republican Party in 2010 because they promised to save Medicare from cuts contained in health care legislation, switch back now that Republicans have supported a voucher system to replace it.
You know what’s not popular? Reforming Medicare such that beneficiaries “receive a check or voucher from the government each year for a fixed amount they can use to shop for their own private health insurance policy.” According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 65 percent of Americans oppose the idea -- about the same number who dismissed it in 1995. And if they’re told that the cost of private insurance for seniors is projected to outpace the cost of Medicare insurance for seniors -- which is exactly what CBO projects -- more than 80 percent of Americans oppose the plan.
But it’s not just sweepingly ideological reforms that are unpopular. Cutting Medicare polls poorly even if you leave out the details. Almost 80 percent of Americans oppose Medicare cuts in the abstract, while 70 percent oppose Medicaid cuts. Slightly over half of the country wants the Defense Department left alone. The only deficit-reduction option that is popular? Raising taxes on the rich. That gets the go-ahead from 72 percent of us -- though, as any budget wonk will tell you, it can’t solve anything beyond a small fraction of our fiscal problem.
Now we should watch if the same groups that supported the Republican Party in 2010 because they promised to save Medicare from cuts contained in health care legislation, switch back now that Republicans have supported a voucher system to replace it.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
How Congress provoked Standard & Poor’s
Ezra Klein thinks Standard & Poor's reevaluation of the nation's ability to handle its debt reflects on the fact that Congress is prone to inaction:
Here’s what Standard Poor said yesterday: at some point in the nearish future, the United States government is going to need to pass some laws putting us on a better fiscal path. But there’s a good chance that members of the two parties will disagree on what those laws should include, and since Congress’s natural state of existence is paralysis, it’s easy to imagine that we’ll wake up on Jan 1st, 2014, and nothing will have happened. If you seriously think there’s anything surprising, or even unconventional, in that analysis, you should pick up the paper once in awhile.
also:
- S&P Warns: Fix The Deficit, Or Else.
Here’s what Standard Poor said yesterday: at some point in the nearish future, the United States government is going to need to pass some laws putting us on a better fiscal path. But there’s a good chance that members of the two parties will disagree on what those laws should include, and since Congress’s natural state of existence is paralysis, it’s easy to imagine that we’ll wake up on Jan 1st, 2014, and nothing will have happened. If you seriously think there’s anything surprising, or even unconventional, in that analysis, you should pick up the paper once in awhile.
also:
- S&P Warns: Fix The Deficit, Or Else.
There is no constitutional right to local self-government in the United States
Richard Thompson Ford explains why Michigan - and any other state - can legally take over cities if they feel it is necessary (my 2301s should be familiar with this argument):
.....how local government is organized is up to state law, and the remedy to amend these state laws is the political process. As William Rehnquist wrote in the 1978 case Holt Civic Club v. Tuscaloosa, which upheld Alabama's decision to give cities extraterritorial jurisdiction over nearby settlements, the "authority to make those judgments resides in the state legislature." Citizens who dislike the existing arrangement, he wrote, "are free to urge their proposals to that body."As far as the Constitution is concerned, a state could dissolve all of its local governments and run everything from the state capital. Whether there is local democracy at all is entirely a matter of state law.
Remember that cities and local government are not mentioned in the constitution.
.....how local government is organized is up to state law, and the remedy to amend these state laws is the political process. As William Rehnquist wrote in the 1978 case Holt Civic Club v. Tuscaloosa, which upheld Alabama's decision to give cities extraterritorial jurisdiction over nearby settlements, the "authority to make those judgments resides in the state legislature." Citizens who dislike the existing arrangement, he wrote, "are free to urge their proposals to that body."As far as the Constitution is concerned, a state could dissolve all of its local governments and run everything from the state capital. Whether there is local democracy at all is entirely a matter of state law.
Remember that cities and local government are not mentioned in the constitution.
Why do Supreme Court justices think they can ignore the same rules of conduct that bind other federal judges?
Dahlia Lithwick wonders:
Because we are a romantic people who want to believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, we also believe that something magical happens to justices and judges when they don the black robes. In exchange for that public trust-slash-delusion, judges are expected to do a few simple things: Avoid partisanship and the appearance of partisanship; avoid the appearance of having a stake—financial or otherwise—in the outcome of a case; disclose your activities and financial information; and recuse yourself when those appearances have been compromised.
She has doubts since there is no entity that can force Supreme Court Justices to abide by a code of conduct. Perhaps this is an inevitable consequence of judicial independence.
Because we are a romantic people who want to believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, we also believe that something magical happens to justices and judges when they don the black robes. In exchange for that public trust-slash-delusion, judges are expected to do a few simple things: Avoid partisanship and the appearance of partisanship; avoid the appearance of having a stake—financial or otherwise—in the outcome of a case; disclose your activities and financial information; and recuse yourself when those appearances have been compromised.
She has doubts since there is no entity that can force Supreme Court Justices to abide by a code of conduct. Perhaps this is an inevitable consequence of judicial independence.
Monday, April 18, 2011
You Get the Judges You Pay For
From the NYT:
LEGAL elites must come to terms with a reality driven by the grass-roots electorate: judicial elections are here to stay. Given this reality, we should focus on balancing important First Amendment rights to financially support campaigns with due process concerns about fair trials.
An ugly, expensive campaign for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court is but the latest example of what is now common in judicial elections: millions of dollars in misleading television ads, subsidized by lobbies that have cases before the bench.
In 39 states, at least some judges are elected. Voters rarely know much, if anything, about the candidates, making illusory the democratic benefits of such elections. Ideally, judges should decide cases based on the law, not to please the voters. But, as Justice Otto Kaus of the California Supreme Court once remarked about the effect of politics on judges’ decisions: “You cannot forget the fact that you have a crocodile in your bathtub. You keep wondering whether you’re letting yourself be influenced, and you do not know.”
. . .
LEGAL elites must come to terms with a reality driven by the grass-roots electorate: judicial elections are here to stay. Given this reality, we should focus on balancing important First Amendment rights to financially support campaigns with due process concerns about fair trials.
An ugly, expensive campaign for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court is but the latest example of what is now common in judicial elections: millions of dollars in misleading television ads, subsidized by lobbies that have cases before the bench.
In 39 states, at least some judges are elected. Voters rarely know much, if anything, about the candidates, making illusory the democratic benefits of such elections. Ideally, judges should decide cases based on the law, not to please the voters. But, as Justice Otto Kaus of the California Supreme Court once remarked about the effect of politics on judges’ decisions: “You cannot forget the fact that you have a crocodile in your bathtub. You keep wondering whether you’re letting yourself be influenced, and you do not know.”
. . .
Geithner Primed the Media for S&P Announcement
From Zero Hedge:
And for the most unsurprising news of the day, Reuters reports that the White House has admitted it knew about the S&P rating action on Friday. Which means that all the key bond buyers (or sellers are the case may be, Pimco), knew at roughly the same time what the key market catalyst on Monday would be (we can't wait to get a declassified glimpse of Larry Meyer's phone log over the weekend one day in the future). Which also means that today's action was a strawman in which the big boys merely waited for an opportunity to buy bonds are lower prices, which the ongoing European collapse merely facilitated. Most importantly, it is now all too clear why over the weekend, Tim Geithner's face, instead of being hard at work at finalizing his tax filing, would grace each and every TV screen. Advance damage control, TurboTax style.
And for the most unsurprising news of the day, Reuters reports that the White House has admitted it knew about the S&P rating action on Friday. Which means that all the key bond buyers (or sellers are the case may be, Pimco), knew at roughly the same time what the key market catalyst on Monday would be (we can't wait to get a declassified glimpse of Larry Meyer's phone log over the weekend one day in the future). Which also means that today's action was a strawman in which the big boys merely waited for an opportunity to buy bonds are lower prices, which the ongoing European collapse merely facilitated. Most importantly, it is now all too clear why over the weekend, Tim Geithner's face, instead of being hard at work at finalizing his tax filing, would grace each and every TV screen. Advance damage control, TurboTax style.
Who Confesses to a Crime They Didn't Commit?
From Brandon L. Garrett writing in Slate:
In my new book, Convicting the Innocent, I conducted the first empirical study of the first 250 wrongful convictions brought to light by DNA tests in the United States. First, I located the original criminal trial materials from almost all of those innocent people's cases. I then reviewed those remarkable cases. My goal in revisiting those trials was to try to understand how the criminal justice system could make such fundamental errors. These 250 cases shed light on how not just death penalty cases (17 of the 250 were capital cases), but everyday criminal cases rely on unsound evidence and faulty investigative procedures. It's easy to blame innocent convictions on occasional human error. The high court suggested as much in its ruling in Osborne v. District Attorney's Office, denying an inmate's request for post-conviction DNA testing and saying that our criminal justice system, "like any human endeavor, cannot be perfect." But just because a system is a human one doesn't mean that we should casually assume that things must go wrong. My research shows systemic failures that can be prevented by using improved criminal procedures, subject of a multimedia website, a joint project with the Innocence Project, titled "Getting it Right,"to be launched soon, and with a segment on eyewitness misidentifications which has just been launched.
In my new book, Convicting the Innocent, I conducted the first empirical study of the first 250 wrongful convictions brought to light by DNA tests in the United States. First, I located the original criminal trial materials from almost all of those innocent people's cases. I then reviewed those remarkable cases. My goal in revisiting those trials was to try to understand how the criminal justice system could make such fundamental errors. These 250 cases shed light on how not just death penalty cases (17 of the 250 were capital cases), but everyday criminal cases rely on unsound evidence and faulty investigative procedures. It's easy to blame innocent convictions on occasional human error. The high court suggested as much in its ruling in Osborne v. District Attorney's Office, denying an inmate's request for post-conviction DNA testing and saying that our criminal justice system, "like any human endeavor, cannot be perfect." But just because a system is a human one doesn't mean that we should casually assume that things must go wrong. My research shows systemic failures that can be prevented by using improved criminal procedures, subject of a multimedia website, a joint project with the Innocence Project, titled "Getting it Right,"to be launched soon, and with a segment on eyewitness misidentifications which has just been launched.
Prosecuting Porn
The Justice Department is not prosecuting pornography - obscenity - to the satisfaction of social conservatives.
Super rich see federal taxes drop dramatically
An AP story:
As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.
The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.
Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent.
Gallup reports that "Americans Still Split About Whether Their Taxes Are Too High"
As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.
The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.
Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent.
Gallup reports that "Americans Still Split About Whether Their Taxes Are Too High"
Sunday, April 17, 2011
On Translating the Bible
In 2301 -- in our discussion of the freedom of the press -- we covered the political consequences of the invention of the press: the fact that people could become literate and challenge how certain texts were related to them: Biblical text primarily.
Andrew Sullivan draws attention to a Christopher Hitchens' article on the political background of the King James' version of the Bible.
Andrew Sullivan draws attention to a Christopher Hitchens' article on the political background of the King James' version of the Bible.
What are Collective Bargaining Agreements and Right to Work provisions?
Here's a brief primer for 2301 and this week's discussion of interest groups. This will help us come to grips with the recent controversy over collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin, which is central to the strength of unions - why else join is you can't get the material benefits they promise
Being a Democrat in Texas Doesn't Pay
Also from Texans for Public Justice, a report noting how few defeated Texas House Democrats found work as lobbyists after their defeat. Normally this is a perk. One transitions from a low laying job as a representative to a high paying job as a lobbyist (working the connections acquired over the previous years), but with Democrats reduced so far in power, what's the point of hiring one?
- Democrats Work for Food.
- Democrats Work for Food.
Patronage in Texas
For 2301, a study by Texans for Public Justice - a bit harsh - of the relationship between the Governor's political contributors and appointees.
- Follow up story in the Chron.
- Follow up story in the Chron.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Psychologist agrees not to testify again
From the Chronicle, a story for 2302:
A controversial Texas psychologist whose criminal justice work had made him a modern-day version of the notorious "Dr. Death" — who testified for the state in hundreds of capital punishment trials a generation ago — has reached a settlement with a state licensing board in which he agrees to conduct no more evaluations of intellectually challenged defendants in criminal proceedings.
While admitting no wrongdoing, psychologist George Denkowski agreed to stop evaluating criminal defendants for possible mental retardation after the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists determined that his techniques lacked scientific credibility. The board had become concerned that Denkowski's methods were being used to make life-and-death decisions but had not been validated.
The board also issued a formal reprimand and a fine of $5,500 in exchange for dropping complaints against Denkowski. The settlement came after increasing opposition to Denkowski's opinions, which had been used to keep 16 Harris County killers on Texas' death row after the Fort Worth psychologist concluded that they were intellectually capable enough to be subject to execution. Two of those inmates were executed.
But the tide turned against him as lawyers for inmates marshaled the collective opinion of clinical psychology. In in 2008, a state judge in Harris County tossed out a Denkowski evaluation in a capital case because the judge said it lacked evidence of accepted methodology. The defendant's sentence was commuted to life. Two years later, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities cautioned against using Denkowski's methods until they had been scientifically proved.
A controversial Texas psychologist whose criminal justice work had made him a modern-day version of the notorious "Dr. Death" — who testified for the state in hundreds of capital punishment trials a generation ago — has reached a settlement with a state licensing board in which he agrees to conduct no more evaluations of intellectually challenged defendants in criminal proceedings.
While admitting no wrongdoing, psychologist George Denkowski agreed to stop evaluating criminal defendants for possible mental retardation after the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists determined that his techniques lacked scientific credibility. The board had become concerned that Denkowski's methods were being used to make life-and-death decisions but had not been validated.
The board also issued a formal reprimand and a fine of $5,500 in exchange for dropping complaints against Denkowski. The settlement came after increasing opposition to Denkowski's opinions, which had been used to keep 16 Harris County killers on Texas' death row after the Fort Worth psychologist concluded that they were intellectually capable enough to be subject to execution. Two of those inmates were executed.
But the tide turned against him as lawyers for inmates marshaled the collective opinion of clinical psychology. In in 2008, a state judge in Harris County tossed out a Denkowski evaluation in a capital case because the judge said it lacked evidence of accepted methodology. The defendant's sentence was commuted to life. Two years later, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities cautioned against using Denkowski's methods until they had been scientifically proved.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Texas House Redistricting Map Unveiled
A few stories on the initial proposal for the Texas House's Redistricting:
- Texas House Redistricting Maps Debated.
- In Politics, Turnout Trumps Population.
- Texas Redistricting Map
- Initial House redistricting plan - Eight men (and women) in.
- Texas House Redistricting Maps Debated.
- In Politics, Turnout Trumps Population.
- Texas Redistricting Map
- Initial House redistricting plan - Eight men (and women) in.
Board Approves Report on Willingham
From the Texas Tribune:
The Forensic Science Commission voted out an amended version of a report on convicted arsonist Cameron Todd Willingham's case, but won't rule on professional negligence until the attorney general says whether they have jurisdiction to do so.
The final version will be available to the public on Monday. The original draft report, released Thursday, made recommendations to fire investigators, lawyers and judges and explicitly says the board will not rule on professional negligence while Attorney General Greg Abbott's decision is pending.
The Forensic Science Commission voted out an amended version of a report on convicted arsonist Cameron Todd Willingham's case, but won't rule on professional negligence until the attorney general says whether they have jurisdiction to do so.
The final version will be available to the public on Monday. The original draft report, released Thursday, made recommendations to fire investigators, lawyers and judges and explicitly says the board will not rule on professional negligence while Attorney General Greg Abbott's decision is pending.
Rumors of the Democrats’ Demise in the Senate are Slightly Exaggerated
Nate Silver sees reason to think Republicans will have a more difficult time taking control of the Senate than conventional wisdom believes.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Are independents having buyer's remorse?
PPP finds evidence that they are:
The key to this strong movement back toward the Democrats right now is the same as the key to the strong movement away from the Democrats last year- fickle independents quickly growing unhappy with the party in power. Exit polls showed independents supporting the GOP by a 19 point margin last year at 56-37. Now only 30% of those voters think that the Republican controlled House is moving things in the right direction, compared to 44% who think things were better with the Democrats. Given those numbers it's not much of a surprise that independents now say they'd vote Democratic for the House by a 42-33 margin if these was an election today, representing a 28 point reversal in a span of just five months.
These poll numbers also point to the reality that Republicans taking control of the House may have been one of the best things that could possibly have happened for Obama's reelection prospects. Although we found the President with slightly negative approval numbers on this poll, when asked whether they had more faith in Obama or Congressional Republicans to lead the country in the right direction 48% of voters picked Obama to only 42% who went with Congressional Republicans. Voters may not love Obama as once they did but they're finding him to be more reasonable than the alternative and that means it will be hard for the GOP to knock him off next year without a top notch nominee.
The key to this strong movement back toward the Democrats right now is the same as the key to the strong movement away from the Democrats last year- fickle independents quickly growing unhappy with the party in power. Exit polls showed independents supporting the GOP by a 19 point margin last year at 56-37. Now only 30% of those voters think that the Republican controlled House is moving things in the right direction, compared to 44% who think things were better with the Democrats. Given those numbers it's not much of a surprise that independents now say they'd vote Democratic for the House by a 42-33 margin if these was an election today, representing a 28 point reversal in a span of just five months.
These poll numbers also point to the reality that Republicans taking control of the House may have been one of the best things that could possibly have happened for Obama's reelection prospects. Although we found the President with slightly negative approval numbers on this poll, when asked whether they had more faith in Obama or Congressional Republicans to lead the country in the right direction 48% of voters picked Obama to only 42% who went with Congressional Republicans. Voters may not love Obama as once they did but they're finding him to be more reasonable than the alternative and that means it will be hard for the GOP to knock him off next year without a top notch nominee.
Playing With Fire?
Congressional Republicans are proposing cutting Medicare and not raising the debt ceiling. Both actions might hurt them - at least with independent voter - in the 2012 election.
Stanley Fish Analyses Kagan's First Dissent
Read it here.
It regards her dissent in a recent case concerning the establishment clause. In Fish's opinion, the conservative majority has over the years allowed tax funds to be "laundered" and used to fund religious schools in violation of the clause.
It regards her dissent in a recent case concerning the establishment clause. In Fish's opinion, the conservative majority has over the years allowed tax funds to be "laundered" and used to fund religious schools in violation of the clause.
Details about the $38b cuts are just now being revealed
Some info from the Washington Post.
And a bit more from the Atlantic:
Here are the biggest cuts listed by House Appropriations Committee Republicans:
•$6.516 billion from Defense Department and Air Force construction. This includes $6.237 billion from Defense Dept. construction and another $279 million from the Air Force's Overseas Contingency Operations fund.
•$6.2 billion from Census funds. Makes sense, given that the 10-year Census is now complete.
•$3.13 billion from highway-funding rescissions (highway money that hasn't yet been given out in contracts) and old highway earmarks
•$2.9 billion from high-speed rail funds
•$1.885 billion from Commerce, Justice and Science rescissions
•$1.045 billion from HIV, AIDS, viral hepatitis, STD, and TB prevention programs under the Departments of Health and Human Services and Labor
•$997 million Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds under the Interior Department
•$942 million community development fund under the Department of Housing and Urban Development
•$812 million from General Services Agency construction funds (GSA handles contracting for construction of government buildings)
•$786 million from FEMA first-responder grants
•$638 million from Defense Environmental Cleanup
And a bit more from the Atlantic:
Here are the biggest cuts listed by House Appropriations Committee Republicans:
•$6.516 billion from Defense Department and Air Force construction. This includes $6.237 billion from Defense Dept. construction and another $279 million from the Air Force's Overseas Contingency Operations fund.
•$6.2 billion from Census funds. Makes sense, given that the 10-year Census is now complete.
•$3.13 billion from highway-funding rescissions (highway money that hasn't yet been given out in contracts) and old highway earmarks
•$2.9 billion from high-speed rail funds
•$1.885 billion from Commerce, Justice and Science rescissions
•$1.045 billion from HIV, AIDS, viral hepatitis, STD, and TB prevention programs under the Departments of Health and Human Services and Labor
•$997 million Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds under the Interior Department
•$942 million community development fund under the Department of Housing and Urban Development
•$812 million from General Services Agency construction funds (GSA handles contracting for construction of government buildings)
•$786 million from FEMA first-responder grants
•$638 million from Defense Environmental Cleanup
Ai Weiwei and the Artist's Role in China
Here's a debate in the NYT - relevant to 2301's discussion of free speech and sedition - about China's suppression of an artist critical of the government.
Monday, April 11, 2011
mutually assured destruction
That's the term Nate Silver uses to describe the brinksmanship over whether to extend the debt ceiling.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
BurkaBlog :: Texas Monthly
From BurkaBlog :: Texas Monthly: MALDEF congressional plans seek greater Latino representation; easier said than done
Qaddafi’s Handling of Media Shows Regime’s Flaws
For 2301, the NYT details how the Qaddafi government is attempting to manipulate the media. They seem skeptical:
Even the Qaddafi government escort could not contain his disbelief at the sloppiness of the fraud: bloodstains his colleagues had left on bedsheets in a damaged hospital room for more than a week as evidence of civilian casualties from Western airstrikes.
Libyan government officials presented what they said were bloodstains left on bedsheets in a damaged hospital room after NATO airstrikes.
A supporter of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi holds a portrait of the Libyan leader on a soccer field in a suburb of Zawiyah, where government minders took a group of foreign journalists to witness a staged celebration.
“This is not even human blood!” the escort erupted to group of journalists, making a gesture with his hands like squeezing a tube. “I told them, ‘Nobody is going to believe this!’ ” he explained, as Elizabeth Palmer, a correspondent for CBS News, later recalled. His name was withheld for his protection.
For the more than 100 international journalists cloistered here at the invitation of the Qaddafi government, its management — or, rather, staging — of public relations provided a singular inside view of how this autocracy functions in a crisis.
As the incident of the faked blood shows, the Qaddafi government’s most honest trait might be its lack of pretense to credibility or legitimacy. It lies, but it does not try to be convincing or even consistent.
Even the Qaddafi government escort could not contain his disbelief at the sloppiness of the fraud: bloodstains his colleagues had left on bedsheets in a damaged hospital room for more than a week as evidence of civilian casualties from Western airstrikes.
Libyan government officials presented what they said were bloodstains left on bedsheets in a damaged hospital room after NATO airstrikes.
A supporter of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi holds a portrait of the Libyan leader on a soccer field in a suburb of Zawiyah, where government minders took a group of foreign journalists to witness a staged celebration.
“This is not even human blood!” the escort erupted to group of journalists, making a gesture with his hands like squeezing a tube. “I told them, ‘Nobody is going to believe this!’ ” he explained, as Elizabeth Palmer, a correspondent for CBS News, later recalled. His name was withheld for his protection.
For the more than 100 international journalists cloistered here at the invitation of the Qaddafi government, its management — or, rather, staging — of public relations provided a singular inside view of how this autocracy functions in a crisis.
As the incident of the faked blood shows, the Qaddafi government’s most honest trait might be its lack of pretense to credibility or legitimacy. It lies, but it does not try to be convincing or even consistent.
City Growth and Decline 2000 - 2010
Data Pointed offers maps of cities showing rates of growth and decline in the inner cities, suburbs and beyond based on census data.
Here's Houston:
Here's Houston:
A Few Random Posts on Friday's Agreement on Appropriations
- Before Deal, Angst Over Effects of Shutdown.
- Budget Deal to Cut $38 Billion Averts Shutdown.
- Republicans and Democrats Alike Claim Successes in Averting a Federal Shutdown.
- President Adopts a Measured Course to Recapture the Middle.
- Next on the Agenda for Washington: Fight Over Debt.
- Obama to Offer Details of Plan to Reduce U.S. Budget Deficit.
- Budget Deal to Cut $38 Billion Averts Shutdown.
- Republicans and Democrats Alike Claim Successes in Averting a Federal Shutdown.
- President Adopts a Measured Course to Recapture the Middle.
- Next on the Agenda for Washington: Fight Over Debt.
- Obama to Offer Details of Plan to Reduce U.S. Budget Deficit.
Fla. Gov.Scott's team, media in "Twitter war" - Florida Wires - MiamiHerald.com
Fla. Gov.Scott's team, media in "Twitter war" - Florida Wires - MiamiHerald.com
New technologies create new tactics...
It used to be that if the governor's office wasn't happy with what a reporter had written, someone would pick up the phone or email to protest. That's too old fashioned for Gov. Rick Scott's team.
Scott's communications director, Brian Burgess, is taking to Twitter to contradict and argue with reporters and criticize news outlets. Shots have often been fired back in what some are describing as an online fight between capitol reporters and the governor's main messenger - sometimes to the amusement of those following the exchanges.
"What used to be a flurry of phone calls back and forth and maybe barging into people's offices has become a Twitter war and, often times, it's silly," said Brian Crowley, a former Palm Beach Post political reporter who now runs the Crowley Political Report blog. "It's not a two-way conversation. It's a mob conversation."
When St. Petersburg Times reporter Michael Bender tweeted that Scott planned to announce a proposed $1 billion property tax cut and said it was 30 percent less than a $1.4 billion cut he promised during his campaign, Burgess tweeted, "Myth." Bender took the bait and an exchange ensued.
"Going by your press release," tweeted Bender.
"The phrase 'over $1 billion' doesn't give you poetic license to infer your own number," Burgess retorted.
"It's your press release. 30% seems a bit much to round, no?" Bender tweeted.
When Scott announced his budget the next week, Burgess singled out Bender in another tweet: "$1.4 billion over two years.
New technologies create new tactics...
It used to be that if the governor's office wasn't happy with what a reporter had written, someone would pick up the phone or email to protest. That's too old fashioned for Gov. Rick Scott's team.
Scott's communications director, Brian Burgess, is taking to Twitter to contradict and argue with reporters and criticize news outlets. Shots have often been fired back in what some are describing as an online fight between capitol reporters and the governor's main messenger - sometimes to the amusement of those following the exchanges.
"What used to be a flurry of phone calls back and forth and maybe barging into people's offices has become a Twitter war and, often times, it's silly," said Brian Crowley, a former Palm Beach Post political reporter who now runs the Crowley Political Report blog. "It's not a two-way conversation. It's a mob conversation."
When St. Petersburg Times reporter Michael Bender tweeted that Scott planned to announce a proposed $1 billion property tax cut and said it was 30 percent less than a $1.4 billion cut he promised during his campaign, Burgess tweeted, "Myth." Bender took the bait and an exchange ensued.
"Going by your press release," tweeted Bender.
"The phrase 'over $1 billion' doesn't give you poetic license to infer your own number," Burgess retorted.
"It's your press release. 30% seems a bit much to round, no?" Bender tweeted.
When Scott announced his budget the next week, Burgess singled out Bender in another tweet: "$1.4 billion over two years.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Boehner and Cantor: The GOP's Rivals for the Top
Boehner and Cantor: The GOP's Rivals for the Top
Apparently there are rumors of a coup in the House Republican Conference.
Apparently there are rumors of a coup in the House Republican Conference.
Fergus Cullen: Last week I had my day in (U.S. Supreme) Court - Saturday, Apr. 9, 2011
Fergus Cullen: Last week I had my day in (U.S. Supreme) Court - Saturday, Apr. 9, 2011
This is a fun, brief piece detailing on man's visit to a session of the Supreme Court.
This is a fun, brief piece detailing on man's visit to a session of the Supreme Court.
Friday, April 8, 2011
BurkaBlog :: California, here we come
BurkaBlog :: California, here we come
The Texas legislature is considerign a proposal to require any tax increase to pass a 2/3rds vote. Thsi has proven problematic for other states (California and Colorado for example). Paul Burka explains.
The Texas legislature is considerign a proposal to require any tax increase to pass a 2/3rds vote. Thsi has proven problematic for other states (California and Colorado for example). Paul Burka explains.
Howard Kurtz Wonders Why the Media is Taking Donald Trump Seriously
Not surprisingly, he's good for ratings:
A single poll has seemingly catapulted him from celebrity status to presidential threat. Journalists are poll junkies, and nothing gets their adrenaline pumping like fresh numbers—especially if someone famous is involved.
So when Thursday’s NBC/Wall Street Journal survey had The Donald in second place among Republicans—at 17 percent, tied with Mike Huckabee and four points behind Mitt Romney—he crossed some invisible threshold, from impossible to plausible.
Except I think most of my fellow pundits know better. That number reflects name recognition for a zillionaire playboy. It may also reflect a general sense that Trump is a take-charge businessman who would know something about fixing the economy.
But most of all, it reflects Trump’s recent television blitz—where he has talked far less about his business acumen than about Barack Obama’s birth certificate, again and again. And the media just keep giving him a platform for this nonsense because Trump is good box office. He boosts the ratings. And there’s a sense that birther conspiracy theories are hot-button stuff, even if they are, inconveniently, disproved by the facts.
A single poll has seemingly catapulted him from celebrity status to presidential threat. Journalists are poll junkies, and nothing gets their adrenaline pumping like fresh numbers—especially if someone famous is involved.
So when Thursday’s NBC/Wall Street Journal survey had The Donald in second place among Republicans—at 17 percent, tied with Mike Huckabee and four points behind Mitt Romney—he crossed some invisible threshold, from impossible to plausible.
Except I think most of my fellow pundits know better. That number reflects name recognition for a zillionaire playboy. It may also reflect a general sense that Trump is a take-charge businessman who would know something about fixing the economy.
But most of all, it reflects Trump’s recent television blitz—where he has talked far less about his business acumen than about Barack Obama’s birth certificate, again and again. And the media just keep giving him a platform for this nonsense because Trump is good box office. He boosts the ratings. And there’s a sense that birther conspiracy theories are hot-button stuff, even if they are, inconveniently, disproved by the facts.
Gallup: Americans Favor Budget Compromise Over Shutdown, 58%-33%
From the Gallup Poll:
With Congress facing a midnight Friday deadline to pass a federal budget before a partial government shutdown occurs, a new Gallup poll finds Americans rooting for a deal. By 58% to 33%, more Americans want government leaders who share their views on the budget to back a compromise and avert a shutdown rather than hold out for a budget they agree with.
With Congress facing a midnight Friday deadline to pass a federal budget before a partial government shutdown occurs, a new Gallup poll finds Americans rooting for a deal. By 58% to 33%, more Americans want government leaders who share their views on the budget to back a compromise and avert a shutdown rather than hold out for a budget they agree with.
Conor Friedersdorf Criticizes How the Media Covers War
From the Atlantic:
Our press has always been more squeamish about portraying violence than its counterparts in Europe, where graphic images are common features of front page photographs. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, mainstream newspapers and television programs briefly chose to be more graphic in their coverage, rightly judging that sanitizing the events of that day would do us a disservice. But why is it less important to fully confront the reality of what is happening now in Afghanistan and Iraq? The United States Armed Forces has lost 5,885 people in those two countries. When did you last see a photograph of one of their coffins? Has the story of an innocent Iraqi killed by our forces ever flashed across your TV screen? The figures are mere abstractions.
Our press has always been more squeamish about portraying violence than its counterparts in Europe, where graphic images are common features of front page photographs. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, mainstream newspapers and television programs briefly chose to be more graphic in their coverage, rightly judging that sanitizing the events of that day would do us a disservice. But why is it less important to fully confront the reality of what is happening now in Afghanistan and Iraq? The United States Armed Forces has lost 5,885 people in those two countries. When did you last see a photograph of one of their coffins? Has the story of an innocent Iraqi killed by our forces ever flashed across your TV screen? The figures are mere abstractions.
Michelle Cottle Pities Speaker Boehner
From the Daily Beast:
No question, Boehner is having a rough time of it, trying to impose order where very little exists. "Speaker Boehner is under a lot of pressure," says Republican leadership aide-turned-strategist Ron Bonjean. “So far, he's acted like a pilot flying a plane through severe turbulence, calmly speaking to passengers.”
Boehner’s choice, increasingly, seems to be between shutting down the government—and, in all likelihood, inflicting serious damage on his party—and cutting a deal that would put him on the outs with a big chunk of his members and possibly endanger his leadership position. It’s a choice between two immensely unappetizing options. And no one knows the risks better than Boehner, who is in the unique position of having already suffered through both outcomes.
Unlike many in his conference, the 20-year veteran had a front-row seat for Newt Gingrich’s 1995 shutdown. Boehner knows just how quickly voters stop worrying about their ideological principles and start worrying about their missing services. Bad-mouthing Washington is all well and good until folks can’t get their tax refunds or their passports or their Social Security applications processed. And while it may sound trivial, all those nice families who get turned away from their long-planned visits to Yosemite or Yellowstone can get seriously grumpy.
No question, Boehner is having a rough time of it, trying to impose order where very little exists. "Speaker Boehner is under a lot of pressure," says Republican leadership aide-turned-strategist Ron Bonjean. “So far, he's acted like a pilot flying a plane through severe turbulence, calmly speaking to passengers.”
Boehner’s choice, increasingly, seems to be between shutting down the government—and, in all likelihood, inflicting serious damage on his party—and cutting a deal that would put him on the outs with a big chunk of his members and possibly endanger his leadership position. It’s a choice between two immensely unappetizing options. And no one knows the risks better than Boehner, who is in the unique position of having already suffered through both outcomes.
Unlike many in his conference, the 20-year veteran had a front-row seat for Newt Gingrich’s 1995 shutdown. Boehner knows just how quickly voters stop worrying about their ideological principles and start worrying about their missing services. Bad-mouthing Washington is all well and good until folks can’t get their tax refunds or their passports or their Social Security applications processed. And while it may sound trivial, all those nice families who get turned away from their long-planned visits to Yosemite or Yellowstone can get seriously grumpy.
Glenn Beck to Leave Fox News
For 2301: The relationship was always contentious apparently. From the NYT:
The negotiations that led Glenn Beck to announce his departure from the Fox News Channel on Wednesday ended with an expression of “let’s part as friends,” according to several people with knowledge of the talks. But behind that moment was a torrent of acrimony that underscored just how fractious the relationship between Mr. Beck and the network had become during his three-year run on Fox.
Mr. Beck’s official departure was preceded by conversations over a period of months with the Fox News chairman, Roger Ailes. Even as Mr. Beck and Mr. Ailes described how much they liked each other in an interview with The Associated Press, the message conveyed between the lines by both sides was that, despite ratings that would normally bring about an automatic contract renewal, this was a relationship that had grown cold — and run its course.Was Beck a demagogue? Here's an argument that his appeal was simply based on inciting fear; that he tapped into the "paranoid style in American politics."
- The paranoid style in American politics.
The negotiations that led Glenn Beck to announce his departure from the Fox News Channel on Wednesday ended with an expression of “let’s part as friends,” according to several people with knowledge of the talks. But behind that moment was a torrent of acrimony that underscored just how fractious the relationship between Mr. Beck and the network had become during his three-year run on Fox.
Mr. Beck’s official departure was preceded by conversations over a period of months with the Fox News chairman, Roger Ailes. Even as Mr. Beck and Mr. Ailes described how much they liked each other in an interview with The Associated Press, the message conveyed between the lines by both sides was that, despite ratings that would normally bring about an automatic contract renewal, this was a relationship that had grown cold — and run its course.Was Beck a demagogue? Here's an argument that his appeal was simply based on inciting fear; that he tapped into the "paranoid style in American politics."
- The paranoid style in American politics.
Making sense of the Impact College has on Students
This touches on a point I neglected to make in 2301 this week as we covered -- too briefly -- political socialization. College's biggest impact on students is argued to be less due to what professors tell them -- I can promise you students are quite inattentive -- than the dual impact of (1) a new set of peers composed of people with different views, and (2) the distance that students have with their families. The family can no longer keep their kids in line.
Perhaps this explains why some religious students become more secular in their outlooks when they move off to school:
To me, there are better explanations for the fact that "the more university education a person receives, the more likely he is to hold secular and left-wing views." One is that people who attend college leave home. That is to say, they leave their church, the community incentives to attend it, and the watchful eye of parents who get angry or make them feel guilty when they don't go to services or stray in their faith. Suddenly they're surrounded by dorm mates of different faiths or no faith at all. For many of these students, it turns out that their religious behavior was driven more by desire for community, or social and parental pressure, than by deeply held beliefs. Another reason education correlates with secularism is that secularists are more likely to seek advanced degrees, partly because they're more focused than their religious counterparts on career.
Perhaps this explains why some religious students become more secular in their outlooks when they move off to school:
To me, there are better explanations for the fact that "the more university education a person receives, the more likely he is to hold secular and left-wing views." One is that people who attend college leave home. That is to say, they leave their church, the community incentives to attend it, and the watchful eye of parents who get angry or make them feel guilty when they don't go to services or stray in their faith. Suddenly they're surrounded by dorm mates of different faiths or no faith at all. For many of these students, it turns out that their religious behavior was driven more by desire for community, or social and parental pressure, than by deeply held beliefs. Another reason education correlates with secularism is that secularists are more likely to seek advanced degrees, partly because they're more focused than their religious counterparts on career.
46% of Mississippi Republicans said interracial marriage should be illegal
From PPP. This includes analysis of how this explains support for different presidential candidates.
The Web's Impact on the News
Steve Myers points out the power of the web to send isolated news items across the world bypassing normal news organizations. We should consider this next week in 2301 when we consider the impact of tehnology on the news media and the dissemination of information generally:
Last fall, pastor Terry Jones was all over the news with his threats to burn the Quran on the anniversary of 9/11. Seven months later, he followed through, which you probably learned about after rioters in Afghanistan killed a number of United Nations workers and Afghans.
Jones oversaw the burning of a single Quran on March 20 in a thinly attended event at his small Gainesville, Fla., church. Far from the media spectacle of last September, no local news organizations and just one correspondent for an international wire service covered it.
And yet the reaction in Afghanistan is pretty much what people predicted: condemnations, riots and killing.
The way this news leapfrogged over most of the United States to Afghanistan and Pakistan shows how some stories quietly work their way across the Web until someone or something calls attention to them.
And it raises vexing questions for the media about their power to dampen or amplify a story by deciding whether or how much to cover an event – particularly when they know someone is trying to use them.
Last fall, pastor Terry Jones was all over the news with his threats to burn the Quran on the anniversary of 9/11. Seven months later, he followed through, which you probably learned about after rioters in Afghanistan killed a number of United Nations workers and Afghans.
Jones oversaw the burning of a single Quran on March 20 in a thinly attended event at his small Gainesville, Fla., church. Far from the media spectacle of last September, no local news organizations and just one correspondent for an international wire service covered it.
And yet the reaction in Afghanistan is pretty much what people predicted: condemnations, riots and killing.
The way this news leapfrogged over most of the United States to Afghanistan and Pakistan shows how some stories quietly work their way across the Web until someone or something calls attention to them.
And it raises vexing questions for the media about their power to dampen or amplify a story by deciding whether or how much to cover an event – particularly when they know someone is trying to use them.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Rifts Within Both Parties Test Leaders in Budget Fight
From the NYT, a story illustrating internal divisions within both parties and how they are impacting the current stalement over appropriating funds for the 2011 budget:
On one level, the budget showdown that continued to play out here on Wednesday is all about the balance of power between the two parties, a question of whether President Obama has regained his footing and can still control the direction of the country or whether Speaker John A. Boehner and the Republicans are now calling the shots. But on another, it is a test of each man’s ability to weather challenges inside his own party.
The outcome will help determine whether Mr. Boehner is leading his party or following the demands of the Tea Party movement. For Mr. Obama, it is the biggest test yet of whether he can reposition himself as a pragmatic leader who can recapture the political center and keep liberals sufficiently energized to help him win re-election.
On one level, the budget showdown that continued to play out here on Wednesday is all about the balance of power between the two parties, a question of whether President Obama has regained his footing and can still control the direction of the country or whether Speaker John A. Boehner and the Republicans are now calling the shots. But on another, it is a test of each man’s ability to weather challenges inside his own party.
The outcome will help determine whether Mr. Boehner is leading his party or following the demands of the Tea Party movement. For Mr. Obama, it is the biggest test yet of whether he can reposition himself as a pragmatic leader who can recapture the political center and keep liberals sufficiently energized to help him win re-election.
Wisconsin Backlash
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's crusade against unions seems to have had a predictable effect: a mobilized pro-union movement:
- Fueled by Protests, Angry Wisconsin Voters Show Up to Fight.
- Kloppenburg Declares Victory In Wisconsin Supreme Court Race.
The as yet uncertified result - no way to say who the actual winner is yet - would result in a liberal majority on a court that had been conservative. The difference between the two candidates, apparently, is about 200 votes out of almost 1.5 million. Turnout and intensity matters.
- Fueled by Protests, Angry Wisconsin Voters Show Up to Fight.
- Kloppenburg Declares Victory In Wisconsin Supreme Court Race.
The as yet uncertified result - no way to say who the actual winner is yet - would result in a liberal majority on a court that had been conservative. The difference between the two candidates, apparently, is about 200 votes out of almost 1.5 million. Turnout and intensity matters.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Republicans Bet Public Will Reward Them for Proposing Cuts
We've discussed whether Tea Party efforts to make drastic cuts in the U.S. budget (Texas too for that matter) will lead to a backlash, but there's always the possibility that they will be able to convinced the bulk of the population that these cuts are necessary and that they then become -- maybe not popular -- but palatable. If so, then there are fewer electiral drawbacks to the strategy.
Here's a related story. From the NYT:
Republicans in the House of Representatives are poised to place a dramatic political bet. Led by the wonkish Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, they will unveil a 2012 budget on Tuesday that wagers their political futures on the assumption that voters are ready to accept tough changes in the most sacrosanct government programs.
The budget they are preparing to embrace in the coming days would slash federal government spending by more than $6 trillion over the next 10 years, mostly by reinventing the nation’s largest social programs in ways that Republicans have talked about for years.
....
But the open question for Republicans as they approach the 2012 election cycle is whether voters will reward them for confronting those challenges even if — as has been the case in past legislative efforts of this kind — the changes they seek prove to be highly unpopular.
Here's a related story. From the NYT:
Republicans in the House of Representatives are poised to place a dramatic political bet. Led by the wonkish Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, they will unveil a 2012 budget on Tuesday that wagers their political futures on the assumption that voters are ready to accept tough changes in the most sacrosanct government programs.
The budget they are preparing to embrace in the coming days would slash federal government spending by more than $6 trillion over the next 10 years, mostly by reinventing the nation’s largest social programs in ways that Republicans have talked about for years.
....
But the open question for Republicans as they approach the 2012 election cycle is whether voters will reward them for confronting those challenges even if — as has been the case in past legislative efforts of this kind — the changes they seek prove to be highly unpopular.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
How will the Texas electorate respond in 2012 to cuts in education?
Jason Embry wonders:
Lawmakers made deep cuts across state government because the state faces a huge budget shortfall caused by a variety of factors, some of them outside state lawmakers' control and some a result of their decisions. The House's decision to leave more than $6 billion sitting in the state's rainy day fund added to the severity of the cuts.
That a majority of lawmakers supported such reductions shows that they think voters, first and foremost, want them to cut spending and fight tax increases.
It's the logical conclusion to draw from the 2010 elections. Republicans in Texas and across the country didn't beat Democrats because they promised to do the most for public education. The national Republican wave that swept into Texas was driven by voter anxiety about high unemployment and the Obama administration's spending habits.
It's also important to remember that most legislators, because districts aren't usually meant to be competitive between the parties, only have to worry about winning their primaries. A reasonable legislator could easily conclude that Republican primary voters will applaud a budget that cuts overall spending by $23 billion.
But electorates can change, and teachers and parents who don't usually vote in the Republican primary could decide that 2012 is the time to get engaged. Furthermore, a number of new Republican legislators represent districts that were held by Democrats just five months ago. Some in the GOP will be able to draw districts that protect them from Democratic challengers next year, but others won't be able to, and they will face general-election opponents who will loudly proclaim that schools got shortchanged.
Lawmakers made deep cuts across state government because the state faces a huge budget shortfall caused by a variety of factors, some of them outside state lawmakers' control and some a result of their decisions. The House's decision to leave more than $6 billion sitting in the state's rainy day fund added to the severity of the cuts.
That a majority of lawmakers supported such reductions shows that they think voters, first and foremost, want them to cut spending and fight tax increases.
It's the logical conclusion to draw from the 2010 elections. Republicans in Texas and across the country didn't beat Democrats because they promised to do the most for public education. The national Republican wave that swept into Texas was driven by voter anxiety about high unemployment and the Obama administration's spending habits.
It's also important to remember that most legislators, because districts aren't usually meant to be competitive between the parties, only have to worry about winning their primaries. A reasonable legislator could easily conclude that Republican primary voters will applaud a budget that cuts overall spending by $23 billion.
But electorates can change, and teachers and parents who don't usually vote in the Republican primary could decide that 2012 is the time to get engaged. Furthermore, a number of new Republican legislators represent districts that were held by Democrats just five months ago. Some in the GOP will be able to draw districts that protect them from Democratic challengers next year, but others won't be able to, and they will face general-election opponents who will loudly proclaim that schools got shortchanged.
Supreme Court Allows Tax Credit for Religious Tuition
From the NYT, for my 2302s:
The Supreme Court on Monday let stand an Arizona program that aids religious schools, saying in a 5-to-4 decision that the plaintiffs had no standing to challenge it.
The program itself is novel and complicated, and allowing it to go forward may be of no particular moment. But by closing the courthouse door to some kinds of suits that claim violations of the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion, the court’s ruling in the case may be quite consequential.
Justice Elena Kagan, in her first dissent, said the majority had laid waste to the doctrine of “taxpayer standing,” which allows suits from people who object to having tax money spent on religious matters. “The court’s opinion,” Justice Kagan wrote, “offers a road map — more truly, just a one-step instruction — to any government that wishes to insulate its financing of religious activity from legal challenge.”
The decision divided the court along the usual ideological lines, with the three other more liberal members — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor — joining the dissent.
- Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn.
The Supreme Court on Monday let stand an Arizona program that aids religious schools, saying in a 5-to-4 decision that the plaintiffs had no standing to challenge it.
The program itself is novel and complicated, and allowing it to go forward may be of no particular moment. But by closing the courthouse door to some kinds of suits that claim violations of the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion, the court’s ruling in the case may be quite consequential.
Justice Elena Kagan, in her first dissent, said the majority had laid waste to the doctrine of “taxpayer standing,” which allows suits from people who object to having tax money spent on religious matters. “The court’s opinion,” Justice Kagan wrote, “offers a road map — more truly, just a one-step instruction — to any government that wishes to insulate its financing of religious activity from legal challenge.”
The decision divided the court along the usual ideological lines, with the three other more liberal members — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor — joining the dissent.
- Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn.
This is why voter turnout matters
From the NYT:
The Republican budget released on Tuesday is a daring one in many ways. Above all, it would replace the current Medicare with a system of private health insurance plans subsidized by the government. Whether you like or loathe that idea, it would undeniably reduce Medicare’s long-term funding gap — which is by far the biggest source of looming federal deficits.
Yet there is at least one big way in which the plan isn’t daring at all. It asks for a whole lot of sacrifice from everyone under the age of 55 and little from everyone 55 and over. Representative Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who wrote the plan, calls the budget deficit an “existential threat” to the United States. Then he absolves more than one-third of all adults from responsibility in dealing with that threat.
This decision doesn’t make him unique in Washington. There is nearly a bipartisan consensus that any cuts to Medicare and Social Security should spare the baby boomers and the elderly. And, certainly, retirees or people on the verge of retirement shouldn’t have their benefits changed radically. But the consensus, like Mr. Ryan’s plan, goes too far.
The reason is partly political. Older people vote in larger numbers than younger adults. Children, of course, can’t vote at all. But beyond politics, Washington’s age bias depends on a basic misunderstanding of the budget — namely, that older people have already paid for their Medicare benefits.
They haven’t. For most Americans, Medicare resembles a giant welfare program. They receive far more in government benefits than they ever pay in taxes and premiums. The gap for a typical household runs to several hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Republican budget released on Tuesday is a daring one in many ways. Above all, it would replace the current Medicare with a system of private health insurance plans subsidized by the government. Whether you like or loathe that idea, it would undeniably reduce Medicare’s long-term funding gap — which is by far the biggest source of looming federal deficits.
Yet there is at least one big way in which the plan isn’t daring at all. It asks for a whole lot of sacrifice from everyone under the age of 55 and little from everyone 55 and over. Representative Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who wrote the plan, calls the budget deficit an “existential threat” to the United States. Then he absolves more than one-third of all adults from responsibility in dealing with that threat.
This decision doesn’t make him unique in Washington. There is nearly a bipartisan consensus that any cuts to Medicare and Social Security should spare the baby boomers and the elderly. And, certainly, retirees or people on the verge of retirement shouldn’t have their benefits changed radically. But the consensus, like Mr. Ryan’s plan, goes too far.
The reason is partly political. Older people vote in larger numbers than younger adults. Children, of course, can’t vote at all. But beyond politics, Washington’s age bias depends on a basic misunderstanding of the budget — namely, that older people have already paid for their Medicare benefits.
They haven’t. For most Americans, Medicare resembles a giant welfare program. They receive far more in government benefits than they ever pay in taxes and premiums. The gap for a typical household runs to several hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Fed's Brief Appealing Vinson's Trial Court Decision on Health Care Law
Andrew Cohen, writing in the Atlantic, details how the Justice Departments is preparing its appeal of a trial court judge's decision declaring the Affordable Health Care Act unconstitutional:
The Justice Department's latest appellate brief in the fight over the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is no fur-and-teeth affair. The first half of the 110-page filing, made April Fool's Day at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reads like a policy paper on health care as much as it does a legal filing. And the second half of the document devotes itself to politely chronicling the number of ways in which the feds believe that U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson got it all wrong in January when he declared the Act unconstitutional in its entirety.
The tone of this document is mellow; the rhetoric far afield from where the ugly political discourse has taken the matter of health care reform (that's probably so, from the White House's perspective, for both legal and political reasons). Anyone who has followed the legal story of the Affordable Care Act, through all its trial court rulings over the past six months, will recognize the major points of contention offered now. But what is striking now is how soft federal lawyers took it with Judge Vinson, the Reagan appointee sitting in senior status in Northern Florida. You can go for pages without so much as a mention of the trial judge who has so forcefully threatened to shut the whole thing down.
The Justice Department's latest appellate brief in the fight over the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is no fur-and-teeth affair. The first half of the 110-page filing, made April Fool's Day at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reads like a policy paper on health care as much as it does a legal filing. And the second half of the document devotes itself to politely chronicling the number of ways in which the feds believe that U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson got it all wrong in January when he declared the Act unconstitutional in its entirety.
The tone of this document is mellow; the rhetoric far afield from where the ugly political discourse has taken the matter of health care reform (that's probably so, from the White House's perspective, for both legal and political reasons). Anyone who has followed the legal story of the Affordable Care Act, through all its trial court rulings over the past six months, will recognize the major points of contention offered now. But what is striking now is how soft federal lawyers took it with Judge Vinson, the Reagan appointee sitting in senior status in Northern Florida. You can go for pages without so much as a mention of the trial judge who has so forcefully threatened to shut the whole thing down.
“The Freedom ... of the Press,” from 1791 to 1868 to Now — Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or the Press as a Technology?
From the Volokh Conspiracy, a post that should help next week's 2301 discussion of the Freedom of the Press. The author discusses the original issues associated with teh freedom of the press:
“[T]he freedom ... of the press” specially protects the press as an industry, which is to say newspapers, television stations, and the like—so argue some judges and scholars. “The Press Clause singles out the press as an institution entitled to special protection under the umbrella of the First Amendment.” And this argument is made in many contexts: election-related speech, libel law, the journalist’s privilege, access to government property, and more.
The four Citizens United v. FEC dissenters, for instance, asserted that “[t]he text and history” of the Free Press Clause “suggest[] why one type of corporation, those that are part of the press, might be able to claim special First Amendment status.” Therefore, the dissenters argued, restrictions on the Free Speech Clause rights of non-press entities can be upheld without threatening the special Free Press Clause rights of the institutional press.
Likewise, Justice Stewart famously argued that the Free Press Clause should be read as specially protecting the press-as-industry, because “[t]he primary purpose of the constitutional guarantee of free press was ... to create a fourth institution outside the Government as an additional check on the three official branches.” Justice Powell likewise reasoned, referring to the press-as-industry, that “[t]he Constitution specifically selected the press ... to play an important role in the discussion of public affairs.”
Justice Douglas similarly argued that professional journalists are constitutionally entitled to a privilege not to testify about their sources, because the press-as-industry “has a preferred position in our constitutional scheme.” And some lower courts have indeed concluded that some First Amendment constitutional protections apply only to the institutional press.
....
Here's the full article.
“[T]he freedom ... of the press” specially protects the press as an industry, which is to say newspapers, television stations, and the like—so argue some judges and scholars. “The Press Clause singles out the press as an institution entitled to special protection under the umbrella of the First Amendment.” And this argument is made in many contexts: election-related speech, libel law, the journalist’s privilege, access to government property, and more.
The four Citizens United v. FEC dissenters, for instance, asserted that “[t]he text and history” of the Free Press Clause “suggest[] why one type of corporation, those that are part of the press, might be able to claim special First Amendment status.” Therefore, the dissenters argued, restrictions on the Free Speech Clause rights of non-press entities can be upheld without threatening the special Free Press Clause rights of the institutional press.
Likewise, Justice Stewart famously argued that the Free Press Clause should be read as specially protecting the press-as-industry, because “[t]he primary purpose of the constitutional guarantee of free press was ... to create a fourth institution outside the Government as an additional check on the three official branches.” Justice Powell likewise reasoned, referring to the press-as-industry, that “[t]he Constitution specifically selected the press ... to play an important role in the discussion of public affairs.”
Justice Douglas similarly argued that professional journalists are constitutionally entitled to a privilege not to testify about their sources, because the press-as-industry “has a preferred position in our constitutional scheme.” And some lower courts have indeed concluded that some First Amendment constitutional protections apply only to the institutional press.
....
Here's the full article.
Suppression of Speech?
From Volock Conspiracy, more questions about whether we in fact have a free, fair, and open marketplace of ideas.
In a Reversal, Military Trials for 9/11 Cases
I recommend the following to my 2302s. We're digging into the judiciary and this covers the difficulty in determining whether a terrorist suspect should be tried in the civilian or military courts.
From the NYT:
The Obama administration, ending more than a year of indecision with a major policy reversal, will prosecute Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other people accused of plotting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks before a military commission and not a civilian court, as it once planned.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced on Monday that he has cleared military prosecutors at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to file war-crimes charges against the five detainees in the Sept. 11 case.
Mr. Holder had decided in November 2009 to move the case to a federal civilian courtroom in New York City, but the White House abandoned that plan amid a political backlash.
The shift was foreshadowed by stiffening Congressional resistance to bringing Guantánamo detainees into the United States, and by other recent steps clearing the way for new tribunal trials.
From the NYT:
The Obama administration, ending more than a year of indecision with a major policy reversal, will prosecute Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other people accused of plotting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks before a military commission and not a civilian court, as it once planned.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced on Monday that he has cleared military prosecutors at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to file war-crimes charges against the five detainees in the Sept. 11 case.
Mr. Holder had decided in November 2009 to move the case to a federal civilian courtroom in New York City, but the White House abandoned that plan amid a political backlash.
The shift was foreshadowed by stiffening Congressional resistance to bringing Guantánamo detainees into the United States, and by other recent steps clearing the way for new tribunal trials.
Texas Lobbying Spending
For our upcoming discussion - in 2301 - of interest groups and lobbying: The Texas Tribune details lobbying in Texas.
Is Koran Burning Protected Free Speech?
Apparently some in Congress aren't sure.
From the Washington Post:
Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. -Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) suggested Sunday on CBS’ Face the Nation that Terry Jones’ inflammatory Koran burning may be an example of free speech that should be curtailed during a time of war.
A few assorted comments on the case:
- The Problem With Burning Qurans
- "Free Speech Is A Great Idea, But ..."
- Qur'an burning free speech in America?
- OUR VIEW: The limits of free speech
From the Washington Post:
Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. -Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) suggested Sunday on CBS’ Face the Nation that Terry Jones’ inflammatory Koran burning may be an example of free speech that should be curtailed during a time of war.
A few assorted comments on the case:
- The Problem With Burning Qurans
- "Free Speech Is A Great Idea, But ..."
- Qur'an burning free speech in America?
- OUR VIEW: The limits of free speech
DARPA is trying to develop communications through telepathy
This builds on our discussion below of the relationship between the military (specifically DARPA) and technological development.
We're no strangers to crazy DARPA projects around here, but this one especially strikes our fantastic fancy. The agency's researchers are currently undertaking a project -- called Silent Talk -- to "allow user-to-user communication on the battlefield without the use of vocalized speech through analysis of neural signals." That's right: they're talking about telepathy. Using an EEG to read brain waves, DARPA is going to attempt to analyze "pre-speech" thoughts, then transmit them to another person. They first plan to map people's EEG patterns to his / her individual words, then see if those patterns are common to all people. If they are, then the team will move on to developing a way to transmitting those patterns to another person. Dream big, that's what we always say!
We're no strangers to crazy DARPA projects around here, but this one especially strikes our fantastic fancy. The agency's researchers are currently undertaking a project -- called Silent Talk -- to "allow user-to-user communication on the battlefield without the use of vocalized speech through analysis of neural signals." That's right: they're talking about telepathy. Using an EEG to read brain waves, DARPA is going to attempt to analyze "pre-speech" thoughts, then transmit them to another person. They first plan to map people's EEG patterns to his / her individual words, then see if those patterns are common to all people. If they are, then the team will move on to developing a way to transmitting those patterns to another person. Dream big, that's what we always say!
The Morality of Political Ignorance
A great post from the Volokh Conspiracy. Is political ignorance moral? Despite the fact that voters have only a small chance of ever making a decisive vote in an election, is this an excuse for not being informed?
Unfortunately, extensive evidence shows that most voters both know very little about public policy and do a poor job of evaluating the political information they do know. Elsewhere, I have argued that such ignorance and bias is actually rational. There is only an infinitesmal chance that any one vote will be decisive. So individual voters have strong incentives to remain ignorant. But not every form of rational behavior is morally defensible. Sometimes, rational individual behavior leads to terrible collective outcomes. Consider the case of air pollution, where individuals might rationally choose not to limit their emission of dangerous pollutants because any one person’s behavior has only a tiny effect on overall air quality in the area. Widespread voter ignorance is a kind of pollution of the political system.
- from Andrew Sullivan's Site
Unfortunately, extensive evidence shows that most voters both know very little about public policy and do a poor job of evaluating the political information they do know. Elsewhere, I have argued that such ignorance and bias is actually rational. There is only an infinitesmal chance that any one vote will be decisive. So individual voters have strong incentives to remain ignorant. But not every form of rational behavior is morally defensible. Sometimes, rational individual behavior leads to terrible collective outcomes. Consider the case of air pollution, where individuals might rationally choose not to limit their emission of dangerous pollutants because any one person’s behavior has only a tiny effect on overall air quality in the area. Widespread voter ignorance is a kind of pollution of the political system.
- from Andrew Sullivan's Site
Suppressing Free Speech?
For 2301 and our discussion free speech and the marketplace of ideas: Paul Krugman thinks there are efforts underway to intimidate people challenging legislation limiting collective bargaining rights:
Recently William Cronon, a historian who teaches at the University of Wisconsin, decided to weigh in on his state's political turmoil. He started a blog, ''Scholar as Citizen,'' devoting his first post to the role of the shadowy American Legislative Exchange Council in pushing hard-line conservative legislation at the state level. Then he published an opinion piece in The Times, suggesting that Wisconsin's Republican governor has turned his back on the state's long tradition of ''neighborliness, decency and mutual respect.''
So what was the G.O.P.'s response? A demand for copies of all e-mails sent to or from Mr. Cronon's university mail account containing any of a wide range of terms, including the word ''Republican'' and the names of a number of Republican politicians.
If this action strikes you as no big deal, you're missing the point. The hard right -- which these days is more or less synonymous with the Republican Party -- has a modus operandi when it comes to scholars expressing views it dislikes: never mind the substance, go for the smear. And that demand for copies of e-mails is obviously motivated by no more than a hope that it will provide something, anything, that can be used to subject Mr. Cronon to the usual treatment.
Recently William Cronon, a historian who teaches at the University of Wisconsin, decided to weigh in on his state's political turmoil. He started a blog, ''Scholar as Citizen,'' devoting his first post to the role of the shadowy American Legislative Exchange Council in pushing hard-line conservative legislation at the state level. Then he published an opinion piece in The Times, suggesting that Wisconsin's Republican governor has turned his back on the state's long tradition of ''neighborliness, decency and mutual respect.''
So what was the G.O.P.'s response? A demand for copies of all e-mails sent to or from Mr. Cronon's university mail account containing any of a wide range of terms, including the word ''Republican'' and the names of a number of Republican politicians.
If this action strikes you as no big deal, you're missing the point. The hard right -- which these days is more or less synonymous with the Republican Party -- has a modus operandi when it comes to scholars expressing views it dislikes: never mind the substance, go for the smear. And that demand for copies of e-mails is obviously motivated by no more than a hope that it will provide something, anything, that can be used to subject Mr. Cronon to the usual treatment.
Monday, April 4, 2011
The Latest Measure of Political Knowledge
From the Pew Research Center:
The public is generally aware of basic facts about several recent national and international news stories, but is much less knowledgeable about current politics in Washington, according to the Pew Research Center’s latest News IQ survey.
About seven-in-ten know that Hillary Clinton currently serves as U.S. secretary of state (73%) and that Moammar Gadhafi is the leader of Libya (71%). An even higher percentage (80%) knows that that the “No Child Left Behind” law deals with education policy.
Yet Americans continue to struggle with questions about Congress and its leaders. Just 38% correctly say that Republicans hold a majority of seats in the House – and not in the Senate or the full Congress. Shortly after the midterm elections in November, slightly more (46%) knew that the Republicans had a majority only in the House.
And only about four-in-ten (43%) are able to correctly identify John Boehner as House speaker; 19% say incorrectly that Nancy Pelosi is still speaker of the House. In November, shortly after the GOP won the House, 38% named Boehner as the presumptive speaker and 13% named Pelosi.
The public is generally aware of basic facts about several recent national and international news stories, but is much less knowledgeable about current politics in Washington, according to the Pew Research Center’s latest News IQ survey.
About seven-in-ten know that Hillary Clinton currently serves as U.S. secretary of state (73%) and that Moammar Gadhafi is the leader of Libya (71%). An even higher percentage (80%) knows that that the “No Child Left Behind” law deals with education policy.
Yet Americans continue to struggle with questions about Congress and its leaders. Just 38% correctly say that Republicans hold a majority of seats in the House – and not in the Senate or the full Congress. Shortly after the midterm elections in November, slightly more (46%) knew that the Republicans had a majority only in the House.
And only about four-in-ten (43%) are able to correctly identify John Boehner as House speaker; 19% say incorrectly that Nancy Pelosi is still speaker of the House. In November, shortly after the GOP won the House, 38% named Boehner as the presumptive speaker and 13% named Pelosi.
Mistrial declared in Harris County bribery trial
From the Chronicle (well, the Associated Press actually):
A federal judge has declared a mistrial in the case of a Harris County commissioner accused of taking more than $100,000 in bribes in return for helping a Houston developer obtain millions of dollars in contracts.
Jerry Eversole had been facing up to 21 years in prison if convicted.
But U.S. District Judge David Hittner on Wednesday ended the trial after jurors said they could not reach a unanimous verdict.
The jury had deliberated since Friday following a three-week trial.
Prosecutors say they plan on retrying the 68-year-old official.
Eversole's attorney, Rusty Hardin, says he was disappointed there wasn't a verdict but appreciative his client would get another day in court.
Eversole was charged with conspiracy, accepting a bribe and filing false income tax returns in 2003 and 2004.
More:
- Hung jury ends trial for Jerry Eversole-
- Prosecution, defense retooling in Eversole case
- Commentary: Eversole's bad 'luck of the draw'
A couple comments:
1 - perhaps convictions are largely a functions of who is on any given jury. If true, how much faith does that give us for our justice system.
2 - What is the precise definition between a bribe (wikipedia, legal dictionary) and a campaign donation? Is there a clear distinction between the two?
A federal judge has declared a mistrial in the case of a Harris County commissioner accused of taking more than $100,000 in bribes in return for helping a Houston developer obtain millions of dollars in contracts.
Jerry Eversole had been facing up to 21 years in prison if convicted.
But U.S. District Judge David Hittner on Wednesday ended the trial after jurors said they could not reach a unanimous verdict.
The jury had deliberated since Friday following a three-week trial.
Prosecutors say they plan on retrying the 68-year-old official.
Eversole's attorney, Rusty Hardin, says he was disappointed there wasn't a verdict but appreciative his client would get another day in court.
Eversole was charged with conspiracy, accepting a bribe and filing false income tax returns in 2003 and 2004.
More:
- Hung jury ends trial for Jerry Eversole-
- Prosecution, defense retooling in Eversole case
- Commentary: Eversole's bad 'luck of the draw'
A couple comments:
1 - perhaps convictions are largely a functions of who is on any given jury. If true, how much faith does that give us for our justice system.
2 - What is the precise definition between a bribe (wikipedia, legal dictionary) and a campaign donation? Is there a clear distinction between the two?
Equal Justice?
Joe Patoski writes about the "Red Headed Exception:"
What is it about Willie Nelson, weed and the law?
It’s been a question worth asking since at least 1971, when Willie brought together rednecks and hippies at the Armadillo World Headquarters in Austin with his unique style of country music and his open attitude about marijuana. His eldest daughter, Lana, and his former wife Connie said pot helped tamp down the rage; he had been a mean drunk when alcohol was his drug of choice.
Now 77, Willie is perhaps America’s best-known marijuana smoker. He is co-chairman of the advisory board of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, has been a High Times cover boy and famously smoked a joint on the roof of the White House when Jimmy Carter was president. His disciples include the actor Woody Harrelson and the country crooner Ray Price, his former employer — each known to have enjoyed a puff now and then. He is the inspiration for Toby Keith’s hit song “(I’ll Never Smoke) Weed With Willie (Again),” which testifies to the quality of his stash.
All that is part of Willie's folklore. It’s when he tangles with law enforcement that things get interesting, though not necessarily all that punitive.
What is it about Willie Nelson, weed and the law?
It’s been a question worth asking since at least 1971, when Willie brought together rednecks and hippies at the Armadillo World Headquarters in Austin with his unique style of country music and his open attitude about marijuana. His eldest daughter, Lana, and his former wife Connie said pot helped tamp down the rage; he had been a mean drunk when alcohol was his drug of choice.
Now 77, Willie is perhaps America’s best-known marijuana smoker. He is co-chairman of the advisory board of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, has been a High Times cover boy and famously smoked a joint on the roof of the White House when Jimmy Carter was president. His disciples include the actor Woody Harrelson and the country crooner Ray Price, his former employer — each known to have enjoyed a puff now and then. He is the inspiration for Toby Keith’s hit song “(I’ll Never Smoke) Weed With Willie (Again),” which testifies to the quality of his stash.
All that is part of Willie's folklore. It’s when he tangles with law enforcement that things get interesting, though not necessarily all that punitive.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Don't Know Much About Politics
Here's a neat little read as we grear up for 2301s discussion of public opinion.
CNN Poll: Americans flunk budget IQ test:
If you think cutting the government's budget is as easy as taking the ax to some unpopular federal programs, a new national poll suggests that you should think again.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday, most Americans think that the government spends a lot more money than it actually does on such unpopular programs as foreign aid and public broadcasting.
The poll's release comes one week before current funding for the government runs out. If there is no budget agreement between congressional lawmakers by next Friday, some government programs and offices may shut down.
"The public has a better idea of how much the government spends on programs like Social Security and Medicare, but there is a related problem - cutting them has little public support," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "The result: cutting unpopular programs would probably not cut the deficit very much, and cutting the deficit would probably require cuts in programs that Americans like."
CNN Poll: Americans flunk budget IQ test:
If you think cutting the government's budget is as easy as taking the ax to some unpopular federal programs, a new national poll suggests that you should think again.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday, most Americans think that the government spends a lot more money than it actually does on such unpopular programs as foreign aid and public broadcasting.
The poll's release comes one week before current funding for the government runs out. If there is no budget agreement between congressional lawmakers by next Friday, some government programs and offices may shut down.
"The public has a better idea of how much the government spends on programs like Social Security and Medicare, but there is a related problem - cutting them has little public support," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "The result: cutting unpopular programs would probably not cut the deficit very much, and cutting the deficit would probably require cuts in programs that Americans like."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)