Blogs v. Pundits

Mike the Mad Biologist has a preference.

Agenda Setting

What are we to make of this story?

Time Magazine puts possible losses in the war in Afghanistan on the cover of its editions across the world, except in the U.S. where the cover focuses on a story on celebrity photography.

Take 1: The media overlords do not want the American public thinking negative thoughts about the war.

Take 2: Celebrity photography sells more copies than depressing war stories.

Maybe both?

The first take illustrates the media's role as agenda setters. The classic quote is that the media cannot tell people how to think but can tell them what to think about, or in this case what not to think about.

The second points out that the media is/are a private business endeavor and that they only exist to the degree that they can earn their keep. Not what Jefferson had in mind, but hey. . .

The Lucifer Effect

More psychology.

A book called The Lucifer Effect is getting hyped at the moment. It concerns itself with an old story, the ability of "good" people to become"evil" if circumstances permit. The authors goes beyond the story and sets up the circumstances, with predictable results.

The war against terror is couched in terms of good and evil. Does this muddy the waters?

How reliable is eyewitness testimony?

Considering how much of the evidence introduced in trial courts is testimony based on memory, it's worth pondering how much one's memory in fact corresponds to what in fact actually happened.

Here a neuroscientist discusses how the brain restructures itself when memories are called up:

Neuroscience now knows that every time we remember
our memories they are "reconsolidated," slyly remade
and reconfigured. The act of remembering requires protein
synthesis because we are literally remaking our past,
altering the cellular connections that define the
original memory trace.

We don't remember what happened, we remember what we want to have happened.

Maybe this is good news. You can have that happy childhood after all.

What?

Apparently New York City has been flirting with the idea of stricting photography in public spaces.

Is photography protected by the Constitution? Free Speech? Press? A bit of both?

TV v. Print

In 2301 we're set to cover the media. What has always interested me is the degree to which that same people can come to different conclusions about a person or event based on whether they get the info from television or a newspaper.

Althouse has a soul searching take on how the same statement from Hillary Clinton seemed liberal when she heard it on television and conservative when she read it in a newspaper.

Recall the stories about the Nixon-Kennedy debates and how radio listeners thought Nixon won and TV viewers thought Kennedy won.

Add to the mix people's attitudes about the famous split coffee case. Cursory TV info leads one to side with McDonalds, the fuller info one gets from print sources make the plaintiff sounds more reasonable.

Why do we process info, and come to the conclusions the way we do? How much control do we have over our own thoughts?

CC's and the Texas Legislature

According to the most recent update by the Texas Community College Teacher's Association, these are the top legislative issues for community colleges:

- Employee health insurance: specifically the amount that the state picks up. Budget hawks want it cut, employees don't
- The level of state funding: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board sets a recommended level of funding, which the state never comes close to meeting. Not meeting the full level of funding means that property taxes and student tuition pay the rest, which some argue is appropriate, but others say prices student's out of college. The governor had recommended fully funding community colleges, but support still exists for funding them at a lower level.
- A trial project whereby three community colleges had been authorized to provide 4 year degree has been judged a success leading some to believe that these program could be expanded.
- Nebulous, in my mind at least, proposals for streamlining secondary, community colleges, and universities continue to be floated around. Many of these are couched in the "Closing the Gaps" initiative designed to lessen the achievement gap between students of different ethnic groups.
- The high costs of textbooks is being addressed in a variety of bills. Some attempt to limit the frequency of the new editions offered, and the tendency of textbooks to be bundled with additional superfluous material. A move seems underway to persuade instructors to use open source material, freely available on the web as text material.

Click here for a full list of the bills tracked by TCCTA.

House Party

Many thanks to Tammy for inviting me, and Davon Ruiz's class to her home for the National John Edwards House Party.

There were about 30 of us and we watched a nicely produced video for Edwards and participated in a national conference call which unfortunately consisted of a ten minute talk by the ex-Senator--which repeated the themes of the video--and three questions which he briefly answered before he had to leave to catch a flight.

Nothing against the Senator, but the consensus was that this was a bit lame. If you have, as he alleged, thousands of participants around the country included in the call you should spend more time with them. You can get a later flight.

Tammy is considerign taking a leadership role in the local Edwards campaign and would love to have volunteers. If you live in the Friendswood, Texas area contact her.

I'll keep my eye open for similar events and opportunities from other candidates. If you are in the Houston area and have anything to suggest, drop me a line.

City Agenda Items

Recent issues of concern to Manvel:

- the annual financial report
- the depth of underground cables and pipes
- the timing of the red light on Highway 6 and 288
- the condition of local bridges

Not sexy, but relevant.

Local Elections

As much fun as national politics can be, local politics always have a greater practical impact on our lives. Alvin, Manvel, Friendswood, and other cities (including Houston) have elections set for May 12th.

ACC will sponsor separate forums for the Manvel and Alvin races, but we'll do out best to cover as many as we can.

Manvel and the Beast

More than Alvin, soon to be not-so-tiny Manvel has had to adjust to being in the path of Houston's continued growth. Recent meetings have been held in the city to determine how residents can affect that growth so that it does not decrease their quality of life. The recent Vision Planning meeting provided such an opportunity, though it remains to be seen how much local input will affect growth.

Here's a power point presentation from 2006 outlining the anticipated projects, some of which may have a major impact on ACC.

Whether and how to managing growth is a key issue cities have to grapple with early if they want to have an impact. So much of what Manvel will become seems affected by decisions outside its borders--what types of subdivisions and shoppinig centers will be build for example. The struggle of residents to control this growth will be an important story to follow for some time.

How might the courts handle attorneygate?

2302 students should read the following Slate article on the relationship between executive privilege and Congress' investogative powers.

It attempts to clarify the constitutional issues at stake and the competing virtues of presidents' obtaining good advice and Congress' abilitty to ensure that that advice is not criminal in nature. The courts will ultimately determine the balance between the two, so the article gives us an idea about how the courts may decide the issue.

2301 students will benefit from the discussion of checks and balances.

A Modest Proposal

Dan Patrick wants to pay women to not have abortions.

What do you think? Ethical? Practical? Effective?

All or none of the above?

The I - word

Foreign Policy, a noted journal, has included an article outlining the case for the impeachment of George Bush.

It was written by a former member of Congress, Elizabeth Holtzman, who served during Watergate. She's sung this tune before, so perhaps she's simply on a crusade, but the argument deserves a listen.

Ultimately, she points out, an impeachment is a political decision, but he claims that the President has refuse to assent to the laws of Congress enough times to warrant removal from office.

Is she off base?

300 - What's the Message?

I've yet to see 300, and probably won't until it's on HBO, but I'm confused about what message the movie is trying to send and how this impacts debate about current public policy in the Middle East.

As you may know, the story centers on the ability of a small handful of Spartans to defeat a larger Persian force by enticing it to commit forces to taking over a small pass in the Greek mountains.

Are the producers telling us that small committed forces can defeat larger invading forces if they encourage them to make bad decisions?

Sound familiar? If you've ever wanted to know what the phrase "those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it" means, here you go.

On Citizen Soldiers and Mercenaries

I tend not to be an alarmist, but the following post raises troubling questions regarding the direction our defense apparatus may be headed. It focuses on concerns about the increased political strength of private armies like Blackwater, but reaches into broader concerns.

It fits with the previous topic regarding privatizing prisons, but here the consequences could be much more severe.

For background info, this is a mercenary, this is a citizen-soldier.

Partisan and Ideological Trends

2301 students: Were going to hit this report hard next week.

Private v. Public Sector

Who should run corrections and detention facilities.

Governments can be inefficient, but free market efficiencies can be brutal.

Here's a Chron editorial slamming the privately run Hutto Federal Detention Center. A snippet:

The children at the T. Don Hutto Residential Center in
Taylor, 35 miles northeast of Austin, live in cells; they
wear uniforms and receive inadequate medical and
educational services, are often cold and hungry, separated
from their parents as punishment, and until recently
received one hour of schooling per day and rarely played
outside. They are guilty of no crimes, and endanger no
one. Their parents, who are incarcerated here because
they are seeking asylum after fleeing such circumstances
as war, torture, political persecution and rape, or are
accused of violating civil immigration laws, have committed
no crimes.

In a recent visit, a U.S. Consgressman gave a more upbeat assessment of the conditions, but it raises an important issue. How do we care for the children of illegal immigrants? Is it our responsibility to care for them as we might care for our own children or does their status put them in a secondary position?

Texas and the 14th

Texas Legislators seem anxious to pick a fight with the 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantee. HB 28, if passed, will deny services to the children of illegal aliens, even if they were born in the U.S. and are therefore U.S. citizens.

One way to interpret this is that Texas wants to deny services to U.S. citizens.

The intent is to further raise awareness of what some people see as a glitch in the 14th Amendment. The citizenship guarantee was designed to ensure that the recently freed slaves were lawfully recognized as U.S. citizens, a claim rejected by the Dred Scott decision.

The LA Times story above makes an interesting point. Texas at one point was very welcoming, or at least not hostile, to immigrant be they legal or illegal. The Legislature did not pay that much attention to the issue.

Not any more. What gives?

John Yoo

John Yoo is an interesting guy, much reviled by some. He was responsible for developing arguments supporting further expansions of presidential power, the unitary executive it is called. He was also responsible for the memos justifying the use of torture, though it's use has been rejected by previous presidents--notably Washington.

The blogs have been on him recently for the logic he has used in further justifying torture. Here's Slate's; here's Balkinization's.

His premise is that war powers imply the power to kill, a greater power which includes within it all lesser powers, including the power to torture, which though it may make you wish you were dead, doesn't kill you.

The above writers take him on. We'll review in class.

You are the next Geraldo!

Would you like to help online investigative journalists comb through the thousands of pages related to the attorney firings (excuse me--attorneygate) released by the White House to the House Judiciary Committee?

You say you'd like to, but don't know how?

Well follow this link, scroll to the bottom right and look under "what's new."

Enjoy.

From Bloggers to Journalists

The evolution of internet content continues.

Blogs are attempting to go beyond simple commentary to full on reporting of events. Sometime ago, talkingpointsmemo--one of the first liberal blogs--started a new site where they invite readers to contribute actual news, and even hired a couple of reporters on its own.

Assignment Zero, sponsored by Wired, is doing the same.

The times keep on a-changing.

Freedom and Authority

The dark side of Giuliani for many, myself among them, has been the hint of authoritarianism in how he governs. The Daily Dish has a recent post with a link to a discussion of his in 1994 on the relationship between freedom and authority.

What do we make of the following sentence?

Freedom is about the willingness of every single human
being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion
about what you do.

Does this mean that freedom is about the willingness to not be free? Does it suggest that if one chooses to exercise freedom, then perhaps one has demonstrated that they are not worthy of freedom? Is authority an end in itself that precedes freedom? That has it's own merit apart from what it provides for the governed?

Perhaps Mr. Giuliani would deny that. He might suggest that freedom, properly considered, includes the willingness to curb one's behavior in certain ways that may be damaging to others, or to the permanent interests of the community. But though some of these restraints may be obvious (not raping, murdering or stealing), others may not (criticizing government, using intoxicants, getting a divorce or being homosexual, or Mormon). A key dilemma of government is determining what restraints are properly imposed by government, and where it needs to mind its own business. And since governmental decisions are sanctioned by majorities, this is akin to determining what a majority cannot do to a minority.

Madison seems prescient. It always comes down to the violence of majority coalitions and what can be done to protect the weaker party.

And what about this lawful authority? In a democracy, lawful authority rests with the people. The law enforcement apparatus, the bureaucratic organization that is the police department or any other entity given the ability to use physical force, is an expression of the consent of the people--the governed.

We should always be concerned when the interests of those organizations take a life of their own and their interests diverge from those of the people. This is what separates the authoritarian regime from the democratic. I trust that Mr. Giuliana understands the difference.

Interviews

If you are interested in following the special election in Houston to fill the vacancy left by Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, check out this link. I has mp3's of interview with the various candidates.

Check!

Though the Texas governor lacks powers over the Texas government that the president has over the U.S. government, the governor has always had one key advantage. When he or she vetoes laws, the legisture cannot immediately overturn the vetoes, because they are out of session. The best they can do is wait until the meet again in a year and half--when they generally have other things to worry about. Presidential vetoes can be responded to quickly because Congress is in session more or less permanently.

Not any more.

A large majority of the House has passed an amendment to the Texas Constitution that will allow the legislature to meet in special session after the governor vetoes bills in order to vote to override them.

The Senate bill has enough sponsors to pass it by an equally large margin. It will still have to be passed by the Texas public in a special election.

Did the governor bring this on himself? In the past he has vetoed large numbers of bills, and upset a good number of people in the state. Add this to the controversy over the immunization executive order and the opportunity is created for opponents to find common ground against him.

Would we be talking about this otherwise? Anyone know?

Some Good News for W

If there is a silver lining for the president behind the significant clouds that have accumulated recently, it's that Congress' approval ratings have dipped to pre-election levels. Gallup is not sure why, but it may have encouraged Bush to take the aggressive stance he took regarding the investigation of the attorney firings.

And is it too early (or ridiculous) to call this attorneygate?

No longer anomymous

This is disappointing.

The guy who made the big sister ad has been identified and it's a democratic operative with ties to the Barack Obama campaign. I was hoping it was a pimply faced teenager working in his or her parents attic.

No such luck. Maybe next time.

Here's a quote from the culprit:

This ad was not the first citizen ad, and it will not be the
last. The game has changed.

Big Sister

The first major anonymous attack ad has surfaced on YouTube. The Washington Post is reporting that it has aired more than any official ad.

MyPolitics

MySpace is adapting itself to more fully become a political tool. Read up on it here.

It promises to be a more effective way to reach out to the pesy 18-24 year old crowd. Another sign that the web is continuing to transform politics.

I may have to break down and use the MySpace page I set up for this class. I'm a bit nervous about it since it can get salacious, but now I have a good excuse to go forward.

Stand Off

President Bush will not let top aides (ie., Karl Rove) testify under oath about the firing of the attorneys.

Good move? He sounds strong, which people like, but could this be interpreted as him trying to cover something up?

Prediction: Subpoenas will be issued, executive privilege will be asserted, and a court battle will begin. Expext this to be in the Supreme Court by mid-summer.

94-2

That was the vote today in the Senate revoking last year's change in how U.S. Attorneys replacements are appointed. Instead of being able to serve indefinitely without Senate approval, they will serve for 120 days.

This is a set back for Bush's effort to have more control over the Justice Department.

And it is veto proof. Now it goes to the House.

Scalia Speaks...

...and complains about the increasingly contentious battles Supreme Court nominees are likely to face in the future. They will not be judged on their merits, but rather by whether they agree with those making the choice of nominee.

"It's crazy," he said. "It's like having a mini-constitutional
convention every time you pick a Supreme Court justice."

I'm no Supreme Court historian, and will defer to those who are, but my understanding is that presidents have always choosen--or tried to choose--justices who share their judicial philosophies.

And what's so wrong about having mini-constitutional conventions from time to time? The nomination process is a perfect time for citizens to revisit the Constitution and argue about what works and doesn't. It's mostly sound and fury, but it's deliberation about the proper role of government and I'm all for that.

Cavemen's Crib

Did anyone else know that this website was out there?

It lets you check out the apartment of the Geico caveman.

He lives better than I do.

Drugs are bad hmmmm-kay?

While we were discussing the DC gun control case in class today, the Supreme Court was considering arguments about whether school administrators erred in 2002 when they suspended a student for waving a 15 foot banner during a televised school event that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

The case, Morse v. Frederick asks whether a school's interest in discouraging drug use trump a student's free speech rights?

Read the transcript of the oral argument here.

Morse's brief can be found here.
Frederick's brief can be found here.

Seems to be a Done Deal

This story claims that the White House is already looking for a replacement for Attorney General Gonzales and offers a few names.

He is losing support among Republicans, which is what really counts. The article suggests that:

A main reason Gonzales is finding few friends even among
Republicans is that he has long been regarded with suspicion
by conservatives who have questioned his ideological purity.
In the past, these conservatives warned the White House
against nominating him for the Supreme Court. Now
they're using the controversy over the firing of eight federal
prosecutors to take out their pent-up frustrations with how
he has handled his leadership at Justice and how the White
House has treated Congress.

The President's famous commitment to those loyal to him might turn out to be an Achille's Heel. A pity really. It's an endearing trait.

The Pleasure of the President

I had no idea what legs the fired district attorney controversy would sprout, but Democrats in Congress seem to be smelling blood and even a few Republicans are calling for Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to step down. Newsweek has the latest. I'm betting that a head or two will have to fall. Congress is threatening to use its subpoena power to force members of the Bush Administration to testify on the matter under oath.

For our purpose, the key story is what it tells us about the relationship between the president and the bureaucracy. United States Attorneys are said to work at the pleasure of the president meaning that if he wants them out, they go. Supporters of President Bush argue that he is not unique in wanting to clear house and bring in his own crew, one loyal to him and his vision of how laws ought to be carried out.

But loyalty can create problems if competence is judged in terms of politics. These firings, critics suggest, were meant to remove those deemed insufficiently political.

This is the danger of service at the pleasure of the president. During the era of patronage, there was no pretense that one's job was anything other than a favor, that one was then expected to support the ruling party by implementing laws in a political manner, and that continuation in that job would be based on anything other than how much political support one had in fact offered.

The chief goal of civil service reform was to professionalize the bureaucracy and remove it from these political pressures. Professional lawyers within the Justice Department were key to this effort. Yet, since they serve at the pleasure of the president--a phrase which has become a bit of a mantra recently--there is always the danger that politcal pressures can creep into the office. In fact, the Attorney General himself has claimed that he serves at the pleasure of the president as well, but that's up for debate since he heads a department established by Congress and had to be confirmed by the Senate before he could hold his office. This is why he is subject to testify before Congress. This is a system of checks and balances and congressional oversight is a key component of those checks.

The precise balance is constantly subject to adjustment based on whatever controversies might be topical. Which is where we are today.

More to come.

Political Consequences

There are few political laws with the weight of the laws of physics, but it may be appropriate to state that for every judicial action there is a political reaction.

It was true for Roe v. Wade and Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dred Scott decision and it may well be the case for the gun control decision, at least according to George Will.

Test Case

Fascinating article in today's Washington Post about Robert A. Levy, the non-gun owning, wealthy resident of Naples, Florida (and lawyer and fellow at the Cato Institute) who funded and organized the law suit against the D.C.' s gun control laws.

This is a classic example of a test case, much in the vein of Brown v. Board of Ed. and Griswold v. Conn. Levy thought it up and pushed it forward under the guise of D.C. residents.

Here's a key part of the article:

Before they filed the lawsuit in February 2003, arguing
that the city's gun statute violates the Second Amendment's
language on the right to bear arms, Levy and Clark M.
Neily III, a public-interest lawyer, spent months carefully
assembling a cast of plaintiffs, Levy said.

"We wanted gender diversity," he said. "We wanted racial
diversity, economic diversity, age diversity." The plaintiffs
had to be D.C. residents who believed fervently in gun rights
and wanted loaded weapons in their homes for self-defense.
And they had to be respectable.

"No Looney Tunes," Levy said. "You know, you don't want
the guy who just signed up for the militia. And no criminal
records. You want law-abiding citizens."

He and Neily worked the phones. "We called all our contacts
in the legal community," Levy said. "We looked at the
newspapers: Who was writing on the subject? Who was sending
letters to the editor about gun laws?" They scoured the city.
"Friends lead you to other friends, and you just keep talking
and talking to people, until finally you have your clients."

They found dozens of likely plaintiffs, Levy said. They
went with three men and three women, from their mid-20s
to early 60s, four of them white and two black. They found
a mortgage broker from Georgetown and a neighborhood
activist in a crime-scarred area of Northeast Washington.
They also lined up a communications lawyer, a government
office worker and a courthouse security guard. In their
disparate walks of life, the six shared an eagerness to
arm themselves.

Levy knew only one of them: Tom G. Palmer, 50,
a Cato colleague who is gay.

Notice the care that goes into selecting the plaintiffs. This points out that this really isn't their case, it's Levy's. So why does he do it? The story goes on to state that Levy's motivation has less to do with gon controal than with civil liberties:

What matters most to him is whether the statute unjustly
infringes on personal liberties. He doesn't dispute that
"reasonable" gun controls are permissible under the Second
Amendment. But the District's law amounts to "an outright
prohibition," Levy said, and "that offends my constitutional
sensibilities."

My question is whether it is appropriate for a resident of one state to engineer an attack on a statute in another region of the country--not another state in this case because this is in Washington D.C.

Does this make anyone uncomfortable? Uneasy?

Is this not judicial activism, and if successful, doesn't it vindicate recent efforts to use the courts to change public policy? After all, a right often pits a minority against a majority--often a local or state majority--and an individual liberty guaranteed by the Constitution is a legitimate subject for the courts, even if it negates that actions of democratically attuned local authorities.

There are of course two ways to look at this: substantively and procedurally. The proceduralist looks at how policy is established while one who is only interested in the substantive outcome looks to the end result, no matter how it was attained. This raises a dilemma for gun rights activists who are concerned about the increasing power of the courts. Though this victory may be substantively appealing, does it increase the procedural power of the court in a manner which may come back to haunt them?

Risen from the Dead: The Second Amendment

The Supreme Court hasn't weighed in much on the Second Amendment, but that's going to change soon due to a successful challenge of D.C.'s gun control policy in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (which is regarded as stepping stone to the Supreme Court). Their decision is certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court and equally certain to be accepted for review.

Background:

Washington D.C. has a notorious crime problem and has in the past been called America's Murder Capital. In 1976, in order to reduce crime, the city enacted strong anti-gun ordinances that banned all guns in the city that were not purchased in 1976 or before and requiring that guns in homes be kept disassembled. The law has apparently been ineffective, but supporters contend that gun crime would be greater if the law was repealed.

The case, Parker v. the District of Columbia, was initiated by several citizens of D.C. who wanted to have guns available for self protection. They argued that the law violates their Second Amendment Rights.

Which is where things get interesting because there is no clear precedent for interpreting the Second Amendment and its confusing opening clause "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...".

Does the right to own and possess a gun exist apart from this stipulation? One may well argue that since we don't have militias anymore, and the military supplies arms to its troops, the Second Amendment is anachronistic and has no application in today's society. But it can also be pointed out that people have been allowed to possess guns for many reasons (hunting, sport, and colleting among them) since the country's founding creating a precedent for interpreting the law as applying to non-militia contexts.

We simply don't know what the clause means, but the Supreme Court will be abel to clear this matter up for us.

But wait, there's more. A related issue touches on whether Second Amendment Rights are absolute. Speech rights aren't. One can be punished for using one's freedom of speech in a manner that violates public order or infringes on the rights of others. Does a greater interest in reducing crime (a legitimate public good) also allow gun rights to be compromised?

Again, the S.C. will help us find out.

Depending on how the S.C. chooses to rule, their decision could impact gun control legislation across the country--but only if they choose to rule broadly. They could, and often do, make decisions that apply narrowly to the specific issue in the case before them and resist the urge to set policy for the entire country. But they may make an exception here, who knows?

Worth noting:

Among those supporting the appellants were many state's Attorney Generals, including our very own Greg Abbott, The National Rifle Association (no suprise) and the Congress of Racial Equality.

Other Attorney Generals lined up with the city as did the Brady Center.

Spring Break...

...is about over and I'm curious (within limits) about what exactly you did.

I imagine that more than a few of you work and have responsibilities that keep your feet on the ground, but some don't. So how did you occupy your time? Maybe you got some of my written assignments out of the way--not holding my breath.

Anyone willing to stick their necks out and say that this is a wasted week that should be spent in class? You can post anonymously if you wish.

I test drove cars with my (and for) wife and bought and assembled a huge new couch from IKEA. I have about a hundred pounds of cardboard to tie up before the trashman gets here Monday.

Big time fun.

About that Speech

Here is WaPo coverage of the speech that Karl Rove gave at the Clinton Presidential Library.

As tends to occur at this point in every second term presidency, speculation centers on a president's legacy--even though everyone in the administration denies that this is a concern.

After claiming that every president builds on the administrative achievements of their predecessors, Rove makes the following argument about what may be Bush's most enduring influence:

He said that the biggest Bush legacy will be what he terms the "Bush doctrine."
It "says if you train a terrorist, harbor a terrorist, feed a terrorist, you
will be treated like a terrorist yourself. And then the corollary of that, which
is that we will not wait until dangers fully materialize before taking action."

Critics weigh in however and claim that his legacy will be marked more by increased polarization in politics.

We'll stay on this subject.

Gates Speaks

Bill Gates testified today before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee that today's schools are not preparing American students to adequately compete in the information based economy of the future.

There's a reason why American firms have setting up shop in China and India.

Hell Freezes Over, Part II

Karl Rove is scheduled to speak tomorrow at the Clinton Presidential Library.

Why I like Juries

There on the front page of the New York Times you see photos of three key players in the Libby trial.

-Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor

-Dick Cheney, the defendant's boss

-Dennis Collins, the jury foreman

Where else can you see a private citizen lined up as an equal with high powered people like Fitzgerald and Cheney? Did I say equal? He and his fellow jurors were able to evaluate the arguments of the prosecutor and pass judgement on the defendant. Sounds like more than an equal.

A group of private citizens were able to check the power of the White House.

Libby, Libby, Libby

It's been a while since I've posted on the Scotter Libby trial, but now that guilty verdicts have been issued, it's appropriate to weigh in again and discuss it's implications for executive power. If you want to refresh your memory of the case go to this link in Slate. It contains links to the various articles they published regarding the case.

Recall that Mr. Libby was the Vice President's Chief of Staff, and he seems to have been involved in efforts to discredit an early critic of the allegations that were used to persuade people to support the invasion of Iraq. One aspect of these efforts involved the revelation that the wife of the critic was a covert CIA agent, which is illegal. Mr. Libby was found guilty of lying about what happened to a special prosecutor. At the moment there seems to be no effort to investigate the breaking of the actual law, which is upsetting to some, but not to those who see this case as overblown.

Here are some of the related issues worth pondering:

-Considering that the administration effectively outed a covert CIA agent for political reasons, what might this do for relationships between the White House and the bureaucracy? Will CIA agents be less trusting of the White House?

-Since the bulk of the testimony came from members of the media who were compelled to testify, and some of these individuals seemed to willing to be manipulated by White House officials, how willing will members of the media be to cover similar issues in the future?

-Is the special prosecutor too loose a cannon?

-Did the prosecutor focus on the right people, and if not, why not?

Checks, Balances, and War

Here's some back and forth in Slate regarding congressional power to manage war.

The Fired Attorneys Testify

The promised hearings regarding why eight U.S. Attorneys were fired last year begins to day in the House and the Senate.

Aside from the merits of this dispute, increasing attention is being paid to changes that Congress approved in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act last year (read the DoJ coverage here). This Slate article provides background, but apparently Congress was unaware that tucked deep inside the bill were provisions removing the Senate's ability to confirm the appointment of attorneys.

Executive control of the Justice Department was thereby expanded without the knowledge of the legislative or judicial branches. This seems to confirm the points we have been discussing in class concerning the increase in presidential popwers over the past several decades, which seems to have been accelerating since W Bush has been in office.

A few things are worth considering.

-Is it appropriate for the chief executive to have full control over the Justice Department--or any executive department for that matter? He is "chief" executive after all.

-Is it dangerous for the president to have full control of the Justice Department. Is congressional and judicial oversight necessary in order to prevent tyranny?

-Is it dangerous if the president does not have full control over the Justice Department? Will we more vulnerable to bad guys if Congress can slow down the law enforcement process?

-Is a president likely to politicize the judiciary? Hire attorneys who will only attack his political enemies?

-Was Congress derelict in its duty by not beign fully aware of what they were voting on?

-Is this likely to emerge as a political issue in 2008 and beyond?

-etc, etc, etc . . .

Giuliani and the Republican Party Platform

In 2301 we have been discussing the problems that the two major U.S. parties face in keeping consistent positions on issues. Republicans are having to face the uncomfortable reality that candidate that currently seems most competitive has different positions than the party on two of the most important issues to the party faithful: abortion and gay rights.

Maybe things change down the line, but do party identifiers stick to their principles and risk losing, or do they compromise principles in the hopes of winning?

This is a classic dilemma.

What to do? What to do?

WaPo on the Rise of Lobbying

Today the Washington Post begins an online video series on the rise of lobbying. Aside form any merit the series itself will have, its a further indication of how the sophistication of the web is transforming newspapers and television. Network and cable outfits have print versions available on line and newspapers return the favor by having video content on their sites.

Is there any useful distinction between the two anymore?

A Public Service Announcement

We will soon (after spring break) be dwelving further into ideology--at least my 2301 classes will. It'll be useful to bring up a few things that have fallen out regarding Ann Coulter's comments regarding John Edwards at the Conservative Political Action Conference yesterday.

Suffice to say that her comments would not be out of place among 8th graders.

First, it is interesting to note that this seems to be something the blogosphere, but not the mainstream media, cares about. Take that how you will.

But of special interest are criticisms levied by more serious conservatives who are worried that the newer generation lacks any understanding of the principles the movement is based on. For them, conservatism seems little more than focused hatred on a handful of people who are alleged to be liberal. Here's a cover story from the American Conservative bemoaning the trend, but it is worth considering whether this is simply the way things go.

When liberalism was in ascendancy there certainly came a moment when its supporters lost track of what the liberalism stood for and instead merely supported it because the movement's political strength provided them with material advantages--jobs etc... (Remember that during the disputes surrounding the country's founding that each side argued that the other carried less about principle than about self-interest).

Now it appears that conservatism has come to that point and perhaps the pendulum will begin its inevitable swing leftward.

To summarize thoughts by one of the bloggers in question, young conservatives ought to look less to Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter for their thoughts and ideas and more to those of the modern movement's founders: Richard Weaver, Robert Nisbet, and Russell Kirk.

Maybe then take look at the work of Edmund Burke.

Gov v. Market

One of the stories I have been remiss in not covering is the controversy concerning JetBlue and the way it handled its passengers who were stuck 10 hours on a plane in clear view of the airport due to snow conditions.

The airline promised to treat its passengers better, but some want Congress to pass a "Passenger Bill of Rights" in order to guarantee better treatment.

At root, this is a question concerning the proper relationship between freedom (in this case the ability of airlines and passengers to conduct their own affairs as they see fit) and coercion (government stepping in and mandating certain behaviors that are unlikely to happen voluntarily). Can the free market correct itself or does government have to step in?

Here's a link to an open thread on the Washington Post where readers discuss this question.

It's worth pondering because it is the central question in the American governing system--how are the unalienable rights best secured? Did JetBlue (with federal governing authority behind it) violate liberty? Or might the PBoR violate JetBlue's?

The Ghost of Strom Thurmond...

...rears its head twice this week.

It turns out that his ancestors owned Al Sharpton's ancestor's.

And it seems that Vice President Cheney was carried in and out of Pakistan and Afghanistan in the belly of a plane called the Spirit of Strom Thurmond.

Faux Pax?

2301 students should recall that Strom Thurmond helped spur the South's transition from one party domination to Republican control.

Good Cop Bad Cop

Interesting consequence of divided government:

Apparently both President Bush and Vice President Cheney have taken to warning Pakistan, the Iraq government and others that if they don't shape up, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress will cut their funding.

Just wait until your mother gets home and you'll be in real trouble!

About those firings...

The Washington Post has more information regarding the firings of the attorneys that will testify before Congress next week.

The White House claims they were not working hard enough to carry out the president's policies. This points to a classic dispute between the presidency, Congress and the bureaucracy. Each has its own ideas concerning the implementation of public policy and the turf to make it happen, which leads to conflict.

There are constitutional issues at stake here as well. Who controls the bureaucracy? The president, due to his constitutional role as chief executive, or the legislature since they established the laws that the bureaucracy implements as well as the appropriations that fund that implementation?

Politics underlies this conflict also. Is the White House complaint based on policy or politics. The former is permitted, the latter is not.

Still More Oversight

This time its the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law and it concerns the firing of eight attorneys in the Justice Department. Democrats want to know if it was for political, not performance, reasons.

A Little Fun

Here is Wikipedia's entry on Evolution.

Here's Conservapedia's.

Et Tu Wiki?

I had no idea, but apparently I have been sending you biased information by linking to pages from Wikipedia. We all know that the infomration can be factually suspect because it is produced by readers. I link anyway because the better articles themselves link to worthy outside sources, but apparently the antire site is part of the liberally biased media.

To the rescue comes Conservapedia with, one assumes, fair and balanced definitions of words and terms and such like.

We can all rest easier now.

From Leslie Bryant:

I've posted this comment a bit late (my apologies) but one of your fellow students has questions about the wisom of the surge. Can you help out?

It was brought to my attention that the President, George Bush, is proposing a bill to send 21,500 more United States troops to the war zone in Iraq. I disagree with the passing of this bill. Is sending that many more troops over there just another one of Bush’s ways of attempting to comfort Americans and soothe their fears of this war or does he actually think that this may help us to further ourselves and win this war. The war in Iraq has been in effect for about four years now and still it seems that we have gotten pretty much no where. It doesn’t seem to make much sense to send over thousands more of our young America to something that seems to consistently only be ending the deaths of many young Americans.

The very unpopular war has led to the deaths of over three thousand United States troops and is blamed for the “GOP losses in the November 7th elections that handed control of Congress to the Democrats.” The Senate’s debate on the new resolution by the President is set to begin next week. The House floor debate is set for February 12th, 2007.

It is just so hard for me to agree to send over more and more troops when it seems like all we are getting out of this war so far is a higher death toll. What needs to be decided is whether sending over more troops will help America to advance in the war or whether it is our lack of a sufficient strategy in the war. Is our sole purpose and strategy to simply outnumber the enemy, or will it honestly help us in the war against Iraq?

It just seems that more and more everyday we are slowly losing the war in Iraq and that we keep on losing the lives of those brave enough to go out there and fight for their country. I do not have much of a background on the war in Iraq and the dispersion of troops, but in my mind I just cannot fathom the idea of throwing thousands of more troops in the fire like that. It seems that what the President should do is go in and in a round-about way observe, if at all possible, and then hold a meeting of some sort discussing what was observed and if in fact sending in more troops to Iraq is the answer to our problems.

Also by sending such a significant amount, could this possibly “clutter” the war zone and cause more of a problem than it would be actually solving the solution? Is George Bush solely sending the troops over to solidify continuous funding for the war and the troops? I guess my main question is asking whether or not George Bush does in fact have the best interest of our troops at heart and not just money and priorities first?

Red Light Cameras and the Constitution

Thanks To Jessica White for bringing up this story in class.

Do the red light cameras in Houston violate constitutional rights and if so, what rights do they violate?

This question relates to the subject matter of both 2301 and 2302. In 2301 we will be discussing the appropriate limits of governmental power (civil liberities) and where they might be found (either specifically written in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or seen in the broader reaches of the concept of "unalienable rights"). In 2302 we will discuss how appellate judges--most notably members of the Supreme Court--interpret constitutional language.

Two traffic lawyers in Houston claim that the cameras violate the principle of taxation without representation, which suggests that they see the policy not as a traffic safety issue, but as a revenue issue (in 2301 we will discuss the concept of framing when we cover public opinion).

Having yet to dwelve fully into this, I think that if this is defined as a traffic safety issue, then there really are no rights issues in play. Driving is considered a privilege not a right and the greater interest of society in having safe roads--which includes ensuring that people stop at red lights--outweighs an individuals' claim to drive as they choose, or to protest a means for enforcing the law. This is a more complex issue than I'm giving it credit for however. Legitimate questions have been raised in the past regarding the constitutionality of enforcing speed limits with cameras and sending tickets to the registered user (how do we know that that was the driver?) and the use of road blocks to enforce compliance.

But since this is defined in terms of taxation, who knows how it will go? Here are some posts (one and two) from other sources which describe this effort. Apparently this has been going on a while.

On Environmentalists and Episcopalians

A few stories have cropped up regarding the cohesiveness of both the environmental movement and the Episcopalian Church given conflict about two emerging issues. Both speak to the factors that influence interest group strength and the degree to which the introduction of a new issue (or an old one with a nuance) can split a group and make it less strong than it otherwise might be.

The issues are, respectively, nuclear power and homosexuality. Some in the environmental movement are rethinking their traditional opposition to nuclear power in the wake of concerns over global warming. Stewart Brand who has been a member in good standing of the environmental community for decades has been labled a heretic because of his recent support for nuclear power, which does not release carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

The U.S. Episcopalian Church's acceptance of gay bishops and civil unions for gay couples has led some of it's member organizations to leave it in favor of the Anglican Communion, a world wide organization.

The strength of interest groups is often less a matter of size than of cohesion, and cohesion is often due to control over the types of issues that the group focuses upon.

Jury Duty

Monday was the third time I've had jury duty since I've run out of excuses for not having to go, and once again I didn't make it to voir dire, but I'm coming to believe that the jury system is the single most important--though misunderstood, maligned and abused--institution in the American governing system.

Where else can the random population make a decision that has an immediate impact on the greater society? Though we are trained to think of the legislative branch as being the closest to the people--because of direct elections and all--the economics of the political process makes that unlikely. A solid track record of donations, or influence on turnout betray the reality that we are not politically equal.

Not so on a jury.

The random process that drags people to jury duty smooths out all social differences. It's worth wondering whether a similar process for staffing Congress or the Texas Legislature might create an institution more in step with the preferences of the people. The closest I got to actual service I found myself with about 30 others outside a court room while a plea bargain was worked out inside. When the judge called us into the court room to explain what happened he mention that our jury pool included another state judge and a county commissioner.

Juries have been muzzled over time unfortunately. In revolutionary America jurors would nullify laws they objected to. That might get one sent to jail these days, but why? Shouldn't jury decisions be considered just another check on the powers of the legislature? Or might this give commoners too much influence?

Funny how people seem to enjoy disdaining the decisions of juries--think OJ and the rest. Considering that the typical juror has more in common with the American public than the typical legislator, judge or executive official, we might really be disdaining ourselves, which may not be a bad thing of course. We can all stand to be criticized.

I've found this website to be provocative. Perhaps we can beat this dead horse in 2302 when we start in on the judiciary.

Strange Bedfellows

For some time now environmentalists in Texas (both of them) have been adamantly opposed to Gov. Perry's plan to allow TXU Energy build almost a dozen new coal plants using old technology that was going to double the amount of pollution pumped into Texas skies.

Well that's old news now since TXU is about to be purchased by two private equity groups who have brought the environmentalists, Environmental Defense, into the discussion and agreed to only build three of the plants.

Do the equity firms see the environmental angle as beneficial to the long term value of the company? Here's the scoop from ED's president. I'm unaware of any other deal struck between such an interest group and private equity firms (which I find a bit spooky, though I can't quite pin down why).

Perry's power checked, or not?

Despite winning reelection with only 39% of the vote, the governor is steamrolling a variety of initiatives. Each however is being checked through a variety of means--legislative, judicial and political. Read up on it in today's chron.

Crisis in Italy

There is a governing crisis occuring across the globe that could not happen in the United States due to our plurality or winner take all voting rules. Italy's ruling coalition seems to have fallen apart due to a failed vote in their Senate. The Prime Minister has resigned (but may return) because the bloc of parties he cobbled together following Italy's most recent election has fallen apart. Concerns abound regardign Italy's stability.

All of this is due to the fact that Italy--as do most democracies across the world--uses proportional representation to assign its seats. People vote for parties who are then allocated seats according to the proportion of votes cast. This allows for multiple parties to run competitively (apparently 39 parties ran candidates in last year's elections) since one can cast a meaningful vote for a small party.

In the U.S this could not happen, because only the person with the most votes gets a seat--be it executive, legislative or judicial. A vote for a smaller party candidate is considered to be thrown away. The best it can do is draw support from the more prefereable of the two major candidates. The culmination of a century and a half of such elections has led to two very competitive large parties composed of coalitions of individuals that are willing to settle for second best.

It could be different, should it?

The Political Economy of Sponge Bob Square Pants

Thus Spake Plankton:

"Now get up there and show him how the common man prepares his frozen dairy treats."
-spoken as he orders Patrick to dive into a vat of chocolate.

You SpongeBob fans know that Patrick is competing against SpongeBob to win the fry cook games in Bikini Bottom. SpongeBob has just completed a jump into the vat of chocolate but then jumped into a bowl of chopped almonds. Plankton, though he respects the choice, calls it too high brow for the crowd.

Like any tyrant worth his salt, he sees his support coming from the mass public. The elites are a threat to his ambition. He knows that if he can turn the people away from SpongeBob by having Patrick prepare a desert more to their liking, his dream of turning Bikini Bottom into Planktopolis which he could then rule by force of will could become a reality.

Genius.

This is Why you Dont Want Camera in the Court Room

The world has a new media sensation--as if we needed one--and his name is Larry Seidlin, Judge Larry Seidlin. He's presiding over the hearings underway in Florida that will determine where Anna Nicole Smith will be buried, and he is making the most of it.

Apparently he's using these hearings as an opportunity to audition for his own "Judge Judy" type TV show.

This may be one of the reasons Justice Kennedy argued against cameras in the Supreme Court. Even if they dont turn one into a glazed ham, they will affect the way you act, even subtly.

Hell Freezes Over

In what has to bad news for Anti-Hillary Conservatives, the New York Times reports today (link may not work) that Richard Mellon Scaife, the person who underwrote the investigations against the Clintons in the 90s is not likely to do the same before the 2008 elections.

The reason? Here's the shocker, but this comes from a former assistant to Mr. Scaife: "Clinton wasn't such a bad president. In fact he was a pretty good president in a lot of ways and Dick (Mr. Scaife) feels the same way."

That's not way to run a movement. What may be worse, Rupert Murdoch aka. Mr Fox News, seems to have warmed up to her also.

Others seem poised to step into the breach though, including Paul Weyrich a "founding father of the modern conservative movement. They still see potential in taking her on. The story points out the importance to conservative fundraisers of anti-Hillary strategies. "The Helen of Troy of direct mail," says one. "The face who can launch a thousand donations."

The question seems to be whether people have tired enough of the Clinton bashing to where it doesn't work anymore. Of course it could also mean that the lull has meant that people might be prone to revisit these controversies with a fresh eye.

Regardless, if she becomes the nominee we'll see whether this still matters.

You might want to purchase a good raincoat.

Just one little word...

Another controversy has surfaced surrounding a peculiar word in a place where children might hear it. Librarians are lining up on either side of the issue, as are civil libertarians.

The book is a recent prize winner titled The Higher Power of Lucky.

Are people being too protective of children, or is the book continued evidence of the apocalypse?

Copernicus v. Texas

The blogs are all a twitter on the distribution of an odd memo by Warren Chisum, the chair of the Texas House Appropriations Committee, probably the most powerful of all the committees.

The memo says quite a bit, but perhaps the most novel claim is that the idea that the earth revolves around the sun is wrong. To say so is to discredit religion positions on the subject, which is just what got Galileo house arrest at the end of his life. It also claims, and I've heard this elsewhere, that since science makes claims that touch on religious doctrine, it can be treated as a religion and tax payer funding of it can be cut since it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment

Chisum is apologizing for the memo now, because it contains anti-semitic language, but a couple of points ought to be raised.

First, is this a wise move on the part of the creationist movement? It is clear that these individuals are part of the creationist movement as well and see the heliocentric model of the universe as the base upon which evolution and other challenges to religious doctrine rests. Evolution rests on the interpretation of existing matter and attempts to work backward and determine how we got to where we are. I can see how one can question this since you can't "see" the process, but one can see the motion of stars and planets and the earth and determine in a more substantive manner how they move in relationship to each other. Is this a fight they really want to take on? Will they end up losing credibility from some of its supporters? Does the movement then risk losing viability as a political force?

Second, could this controversy be useful since it reminds people why scientific principles hold what they hold? I'm no astronomer, so I could not walk you through the helio and geocentric models of the cosmos, but I'm now curious about it because the issue has been raised, In 2301 we would have briefly discussed John Stuart Mill's ideas in On Liberty. Mill argues that one must understand what thier beliefs rest upon, and if a challenge to one's beliefs forces a re-examination, that's fine.

What do you think?

House yes, Senate . . . who knows?

I promise a full outline of the processes underlying the non-binding resolutions against the surge in Iraq in the near future, but for now consider it to be a great illustration of the intent of the Constitution's framers.

The House very neatly dispatched the resolution, reflecting the will of the electorate of 2006. The Senate is still resisting the resolution, but this may be because--as we know--only one third faced the electorate in 2006. The others are there to express the will of the electorate of 2004 or 2002.

In case you want to sound smart the next time someone complains about Congress not being able to reflect the will of the people, you might want to bring this up.

You don't have to mention me.

Now it's Italy

Days ago a German court issued charges against American officials for the "extraordinary rendition" of a German citizen, now an Italian court has done the same thing in a case involving an Egyptian on Italian soil.

hmmmmm

I'll admit it. Sometimes I google myself to see what I find. Usually nothing much.

But I googled this website's title "If men were angles" just to see if this blog would pop up, and it did. It was #51. Why is this so weird? Because the phrase comes from Federalist #51 of course.

I'm in the Twilight Zone I know it.

And yes, google is a verb if you want it to be.

The House, the Senate and the Surge

I've been remiss in not touching on the non-binding resolutions against sending additional troops to Iraq now in the House.

If we recall--since we in 2302 are now experts on House v Senate floor procedures--House rules allow for more control by the majority party which means that the Democratic leadership is in a better position to pass a non-binding resolution than are their compatriots in the Senate. 40 votes in the Senate is all that's needed to ensure that nothing goes forward that the minority wants to go forward.

Not so in the House.

When the dust settles we'll look backward and determine how the process evolved.

HPV Backlash?

We are about to find out just how much power the Texas Governor in fact has.

The House Public Health Committee is set to hold hearings on a bill that will overturn Perry's executive order mandating that all Texas girls be immunized for the virus (my wife pointed out that boys--who presumably would be infecting the girls--are not being immunized when they probably should be, but that's another story). Here's the story from the Chron.

In addition, concerns are being raised about the costs of the procedure, which may or may not be covered by insurance.

Has Perry overplayed his hand? Remember that he only won the election with 39% of the vote. Does he have something up his sleeve?

-An aside from my previous post on this subject. I mentioned that an Austin lawyer claimed that the governor has no power to issue executive orders because it is not in the Constitution, but then I remembered that no such power exists in the U.S. Constitution for the president, but he still issues them, and they seem to be accepted. I believe in that case it fall under a broad definition of the president's executive powers. But considering that the state executive is plural, and executive power is disbursed among a variety of individuals elected separately, perhaps this logic does not apply.

Cameras in the Supreme Court?

The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings yesterday (2/14/07) on "Judicial Security and Independence."

In the question and answer period, Justice Anthony Kennedy was asked by committee ranking member Arlen Specter about his position on cameras in the courtroom (he has introduced a bill to that effect).

Kennedy argued against them. Which raises an interesting question about the impact of the media on institutional deliberation. Does secrecy (or at least a degree of insulation) facilitate a higher level of deliberation than we would otherwise expect? Or do the demands of tranparency--a key component of democracy--require that all governmental deliberations that do not compromise security interests be completely public, and even broadcast.

Texas in February

Texas seems determined to join California and a handful of other states in moving its 2008 presidential primary up to February 5th.

If it happens, the primary season would be short and far less interesting than it has been in the past. And the campaign for the general election will be almost 10 months long.

Oh brother.

Rudy?

A week after top Republicans were ready to concede defeat to Hillary, some now argue that Rudy Giuliani is the man to beat.

The obvious question--and we need to discuss this in 2301 at the least--is whether he can win the primary. He is pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Some factions in the Republican coalition are strongly opposed to both. John McCain is trying to reposition himself on those issues so he can sell himself to the social conservatives, but Guiliani doesn't seem to be trying.

Is this a winning strategy?

Will they respect him for his honesty if not his policy positions?

Regardless, this poll is very disheartening for someone likes me who would like to see an open shootout among candidates in each party. Rudy and Hillary each have 40% support from identifiers in their respective parties.

Let's hope this thing isn't over before it starts.

24

Many in the blogging community (and today CNN) wonder if there is a connection between watching the television show 24 and support for torture.

This is a novel way to determine if the media has an impact on a person's thought process. Even though some military officials raise questions about the efficacy of torture, and whether it is in fact a good way to get critical information from reluctant detainees, viewers of the drama seem to argue that it is. The ticking bomb scenario gets played out repeatedly and is used to justify ohysical and mental torture, but there are questions about the number of time a detainee is subject to questions involving that scenario.

The more one watches the show, the more one sees the world through the lens of its characters.
Are viewers substituting reality for fiction?

Why is this show on the air anyway?

President Hillary?

The presidential election is still a year and 9 month away and already some Republicans are preparing for what they see as an inevitable victory by Hillary Clinton.

Are they sincere or is this a tactic of some kind?

Oh Blackwater...

More oversight hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives, this time the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is investigating the use of private contractors, such as Blackwater USA for security in Iraq.

If you recall, the four men who were basically butchered in Fallujah a couple of years back and hung on a bridge were Blackwater employees. Their widows testified against the company. How does one counter them without seeming heartless?

In case you were wondering why control of Congress was so important, here's your answer. Three oversight hearings that I'm aware of and the session is only a month old.

VP Perry?

A nice posting by Larry:

I was wondering when this was going to pop up on the blog. Not being a constitutional expert myself, this sure seems akin to the Youngstown v Sawyer case that our class should be familiar with at this point. Governor Zoolander seems hellbent to put himself on the 2008 radar in hopes of getting a VP tattoo on his ankle. And in typical Perry fashion, such a fine way to go about it.

To address the first thought, in my brief Googling and internet research, I can't seem to find anywhere that directly or indirectly gives or implies the Governor the power to implement such a sweeping mandate.

Secondly, this is a classic case of irony. Someone who champions family values, abstinence, no sex before marriage, etc. is mandating that school girls be vaccindated against a virus that is primarily spread through sexual contact. Would this go right alongside handing out condoms in schools? You sure won't find Dick advocating that strategy anytime soon.

Another thought to ponder is how much of a "mandate" this really is. From my understanding, it is mandatory unless a parent chooses to opt out for religious or PERSONAL reasons. That sure doesn't sound like it takes much for a parent to circumvent this should they so choose.

Third... the possibility of Merck lining the pockets of Gov. Perry, in my estimation, is next to nothing. While Perry can't seem to make up his mind on the border or find productive ways to enact his utilitarian philosophy on the minions, he hasn't shown himself to be a graduate of the Tom DeLay School of Politics, at least so far as this is concerned.

For a fleeting moment I had a thought that he might backtrack on this issue during his State of the State address, and that was quickly put to rest when he spoke out in staunch support of his brilliant idea. I think the big fuss is made by members of the Texas legislature not because they think it is a bad idea... after all, any parent has the right to opt out for virtually any reason they choose. I think the fuss has been made because Perry wasn't playing nicely with the other kids on the playground. He went over the heads of lawmakers and didn't allow them their God-given right in the law-making process and it ticked 'em off. So Nelson goes on the offensive and now the media gets ahold of this here story.

While the intentions surely are good, the execution is poor and transparent. Perry should have fired his legal counsel and PR firms yesterday if anyone thinks this is a good idea to up his opinion polls and get him on the radar screen for 2008's VP fun run.

Your thoughts?

Illegal immunization?

There's much to mull over regarding Gov. Perry's executive order requiring 6th grade girls in Texas to be immunized for the human papilloma virus.

1--Is there such a thing as an executive order for the Texas Governor? Austin lawyer Buck Wood, who represents school district across the state says that he does not and any directive to executive agencies is only a "wish."

2--Is this going to go over well with people who (1) dont want government meddling in their personal family decisions--the libertarians--and (2) get wigged out over the fact that it touches on the consequencs of sexual activity among the underaged--will we hear from the abstinence only crowd soon?

3--Could this be a favor to the pharmaceutical industry? It's worth investigating whether the governor received money form them. Apparently they stand to receive a sizable windfall, all from the pockets of Texas families.

and 4--The craziest possibility of all--Could this be good public policy? Are the benefits in lives saved worth the imposition? And could this have only been implemented by an executive order? At least one legislative supporter apparently thinks so and is glad that the leg has been bypassed.

I foresee a political backlash the Governor will simply ignore. The question will be whether this will negativelt affect anything else that is likely to happen.

minority rules

We need to chew on the procedural rules that have allowed the minority to prevail over the majority on the fate of the non-binding resolutions in the Senate. Here is one story covering latest. More will follow today.

You Tube

Slate attempts to come to terms with it's impact on politics.

Freedom in Saudi Arabia

A scary little story in this morning's chron.

Fall Guys

The post below makes me wonder if anyone has ever written a history of fall guys in American history.

It would make a good read.

Follow up to "Intimidation?"

In a follow up to a posting from January 17, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detaine Affairs--Cully Stimson, has resigned. He became noteworthy for remarking in a radio interview that people should not do business with law firms that employed individuals who were representing terrorist suspects. He later recanted his statement, but it was not enough to save him his job.

Questions still remain regarding why he said what he did. Though there have been recent signs of cracking, the Bush White House has been remarkably disciplined. Did he say what he said because they were his beliefs or what he told to make the statement. If its the later--is he now being hung out to dry to deflect blame from the administration.

This type of activity is not unheard of.

Interested in government work?

Germany Sues CIA

We are about to find out whether and how U.S. power can be checked by other countries. The case involves the "extraordinary rendition" of a German citizen that the CIA believed had information about terrorism. It turned out to not be the case and he was released, but not after--he alleges--five months of torture in Afghanistan.

He is now suing the CIA and the German government has filed criminal charges against teh officers in question.

This raises questions of sovereignty, at the least. Is Germany right to act this way, or are they interfering with the U.S.'s legitimate efforts to root out and fight terrorism?

"articulate"

2301 students might want to catch up on the current controversy involving the use of the above adjective--among many others--by Senator Joseph Biden about Barak Obama. It is the latest example of how different groups in society interpret that same thing in different ways, a subject we will discuss more when we cover public opinion formation and the role peer groups play in its formation. The key sound bite: Obama is the "first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."

What's the fuss you might ask?

Plenty apparently. Consider how you might feel if after the first test I complimented the class by stating how impressed I was that community college students such as yourselves were able to figue out which end of the pencil to use on the scantron. The compliment betrays a suspicion that you are distinguished because others like you lack the quality in question. Biden's remark carries with it the implication that other African-Americans presumably are not clean, bright and articulate. I would not be suprised to see poll results in a few days showing a racial divide in attitudes about the comment. White folks thinking it's blown out of proportion while black folks arguing that its further evidence of the subtle racism that lurks beneath society's surface.

So tell me: Is it reasonable for some to take offense or are people being too sensitive? Before you answer, think of things that you might personally take offensive given how you identify yourself--be it religious, political, occupational or whatever.

A second aspect of this episode is what it tells us about campaigning in the new digital, 24 hews cycle environment. Anything you say (and/or do) can and will be made available to all interested parties immediately. This is already old news. Ask ex-Senator George Allen among many others about YouTube's impact on their political ambitions. Commentators are already suggesting the Biden's presidential bid is doomed--and its barely begun.

Is this good or bads news?

Aqua Team Hunger Farce

Yes I'm very proud of the headline, thank you.

Who knew that the first major battle over freedom of speech this semester would involve guerilla marketing, a cartoon flipping off passers-by, a discussion of 70's hair styles and a town with absolutely no sense of humor? But that's where we are.

You may already know the facts of the case. Boston's men in blue were alerted to strange cutouts with circuit boards and lights that could only be bombs, but weren't. The city of Boston was apparently shut down and one of these objects was destroyed before someone learned that they were not in fact bombs, but odd devices designed to advertise an upcoming movie. The objects were traced to a couple of independent spirits affiliated with the Cartoon Network who were then arrested and charged with placing a hoax device intended to cause a panic, and disorderly conduct.

Let's think of this in constitutional terms.

Repeated court decisions have established that an individual's freedom of speech can be limited by the social need to preserve public order. The trick is two fold. First it has to be determined whether the speech involves a substantive right--such as the right to participate in political speech and second in determining whether public order was in fact violated by the act, or if the reaction was not reasonable considering the nature of the speech in question.

In the first case, this is commercial speech, which does not have the same protections as political speech (think of flag burning). This makes it more likely that punishment could be upheld by the Supreme Court since this was not abou conveying an idea as much as it was about selling something.

In the second, it is always difficult to prove what was going on in the mind of people when they are committing an act.

We'll soon see whether this issue will linger or will silently drop out of sight--perhaps out of embarrasment. Regardless, as a pure marketing technique I can't imagine a more successful way to raise awareness of a product. Who now is not aware of Aqua Team Hunger Force?

Signing Statements and the Constitution

More oversight from the Judiciary Committee, but this time its the House Judiciary Committee and the subject is the constitutional status of presidential signing statements.

The title of the hearings suggests their tone: "Presidential Signing Statements under the Bush Administration: A Threat to Checks and Balances and the Rule of Law?"

I'll do what I can to summarize the arguments made by the witnesses.

McCain, the Minimum Wage, and Race to the White House

Austin raises a point in his comment to the post about filibusters that ought be expanded:

"I would expect a filibuster on the war funding legislation, because even still, many in both parties are so diametrically opposed on that subject. What I didn't expect was one on the minimum wage hike that seems all but a sure thing. And especially from Senator McCain, who seems like a normal guy with a good head on his shoulders. I haven't always agreed with his decisions, but it seemed like he was acting on what he believed, and not just voting along party lines. This seems as if he's just he's trying to win a popularity contest. I can't blame him, considering his failed bid for the party nomination in 2000, and the fact that he is really the only strong prospect for the presidency that the party has right now. But to resist a rise in the minimum wage now? Not only may it hurt his already weakened party's chances for the presidency, but I think it would shake the middle and lower classes' confidence in the Republican's even more. It really demonstrates the dichotomy between the rich and poor to see someone deny people a living wage. If the GOP want to keep their base (what's left of it, at least) the should forget their newly rediscovered "fiscal responsibility" for a moment, and just sit this one out."

Let's assume that McCain is an intelligent, rational person who is taking positions that are poll and focus group tested and are likely to (1) win him the nomination of his party and (2) not hurt his chances of winning the presidency. Now let's try to figure out what that reasoning is.

This applies especially to 2301 since we cover elections, political parties and campaigning.

What's McCain up to?

Two Filibusters

Rumors are circulating that Republican Senators may organize two filibusters.

The first is a relatively straight forward one by Mitch McConnell from Kentucky. He believes that the Democratic leadership is going to introduce legislation cutting funding for the war and will organize a filibuster against it. In order for it succeed he needs the support of at least 40 Senators in order to prevent cloture.

The second is more interesting, at least the way I've heard it described. John McCain is threatening to filibuster minimum wage legislation. According to this story the goal is to cement his appeal to Republican Party activists. A separate story suggests that this is merely meant to delay activity on the Senate floor so that the non-binding resolutions now being introduced cannot make it to the floor for a vote.

War Powers Continued...

One of benefits of a committee hearing is the testimony itself. Currently the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding hearings titled "Exercising Congress’s Constitutional Power to End a War," and its about just that. What are the Senate's constitutional powers to end the war in Iraq?

The White House argues that once a war resolution authorizing the use of force is passed, the president's constitutional power of commander in chief allows him to implement it in whatever manner he deems appropriate. But as outlined below, the Constitution gives Congress powers which seem on the surface to provide them opportunities to limit the president. Where does one start and the other begin. Our vague Constitution gives no specific guideline to determine this.

The hearings feature testimony by a variety of constitutional scholars who offer their thoughts. As I go through them I'll do my best to outline their arguments.

Frank Luntz

This link takes you to a critical appraisal of Frank Luntz--who has announced that he is leaving Washington following the Republican defeat of 2006, but he's a worthwhile person to come to understand if you want to know why politicians use the language they do.

2301 students should consider how words can frame issues and manipulate thought, 2302 students should consider how these efforts can assist Congressional agendas and elections.

You may also want to learn about his Democratic counterpart George Lakoff.

Both raise a disturbing question--are we in charge of our thought?

Mike O'Day

ACC has a new rep in the Texas House. Mike O'Day won a special election to replace Glenda Dawson. We will be following his first session in Austin. Hopefully he'll grace us with a update now and then.

He has yet to receive a committee appointment and the only bill he has introduced is one "Honoring Renee McGuire of Pearland on being named Philanthropist of the Year by the Community Foundation of Brazoria County."

We'll keep up with him.

Robert Moses

Today's New York Times contains a story documenting the changing reputation of a man who used to head the city's parks commission from 1934-1960. His name was Robert Moses and though he was never elected to an office, he is more responsible for the current face of New York City than anyone else in recent history.

Because this involved the forced removal of thousand of citizens and the destruction of many old and established communities, assessments of his impact have been negative the past few decades. A book called The Power Broker was responsible for shaping the way that he has been judged, but now a handful of museum exhibits are raising the questiosn that without hos efforts to streamline transportation, create public parks and expand infrastructure, if New York City would not be going through its current boom.

This raises issues appropriate to both 2301 and 2302. One cannot argue that he made decisions in a democratic process, but it seems that much of what he did worked to the long term benefit of the people of NYC. He did so by consolidating his influence over the various political players in the region and imposing solutions to problems.

Democracies may be legitimate, but they can be indecisive.

It also reminds us that at root, cities are economic engines and decision making within them often serves that purpose primarily.