As much as Houston has tried to eradicate them, pockets of history still survive. The Sixth Ward claims to be the city's oldest continually inhabited neighborhood and showcases a large number of older homes, some in good condition, some not. The area has a character unique in the city and some of its residents have organized to preserve that character.
But it's proximity to downtown has made it attractive to newer residents who would rather tear the older structures down--or remove them elsewhere--and build from scratch. These individuals have also organized to fight for their freedom to do with their property as they see fit. The character of the community is less important than their individual freedom.
The groups in question are The Old Sixth Ward Neighborhood Association and the Sixth Ward Property Owners Association. The former is fighting to preserve the older homes in the neighborhood while the other opposes it.
It's a classic confrontation, and one that has played itself out in Houston--a free enterprise city--for decades, if not since its inception.
Some related items:
- Ban on demolition in Old Sixth Ward could be permanent.
- The Sixth Ward and the Planning Commission.
- Preservation Sanity
- Houston, Yes!
Friday, April 27, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The End of an Era
Southern influence in Congress appears to be waining.
During the days of strict seniority the South ruled the roost, but the rise of two party competition has cut the length of southern members' congressional tenures, and the region's shift to the Republican Party has put them at a disadvantage now that Democrats are the majority Party.
The South can no longer check policies favored by the rest of the country, or push policies opposed by them.
Consequences?
During the days of strict seniority the South ruled the roost, but the rise of two party competition has cut the length of southern members' congressional tenures, and the region's shift to the Republican Party has put them at a disadvantage now that Democrats are the majority Party.
The South can no longer check policies favored by the rest of the country, or push policies opposed by them.
Consequences?
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Time Warner and the Postal Regulatory Commission
Postal rates will be going up soon, not just for first class postage, but for periodicals as well. But while the rates for large circulation magazines are only going up 10%, those for smaller magazines are going up 30%.
According to this story, Time Warner made the recommendations to the Postal Regulatory Commission who then used them to base their proposed changes to the Postal Services Board of Governors without public input.
Given that Time Warner owns People, Sports Illustrated, and a host of other top selling magazines, it certainly has an interest in keeping its postal rates down, but by working to raise that of its smaller competitors (allegedly) is it using insider connections to make the playing field uneven?
Is this agency capture?
According to this story, Time Warner made the recommendations to the Postal Regulatory Commission who then used them to base their proposed changes to the Postal Services Board of Governors without public input.
Given that Time Warner owns People, Sports Illustrated, and a host of other top selling magazines, it certainly has an interest in keeping its postal rates down, but by working to raise that of its smaller competitors (allegedly) is it using insider connections to make the playing field uneven?
Is this agency capture?
Quagmire
Given that many have been equating the current Iraq war with its predecessor in Vietnam and using the term "quagmire" to describe it, it's appropriate to point out that the journalist who came up with the term originally was killed in a car accident yesterday.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Manvel Forum Questions
FYI. Here's a list of the questions that were written out for the candidates at last week's forum in Manvel:
Questions for Mayoral and City Council candidates:
- If the developers did not get TIRZ do you think they would not come here?
- Considering the future growth of Manvel and the ability of an area to control votes, how do you feel about single member districts?
- Do you believe the city will really realize a significant tax increase in the near term given most developments planned now are set up with MUD’s and TIRZ financing?
- Where do you see the City of Manvel’s growth being in 5 or 10 years? Why will citizens want to continue living here?
- Would you support a Tax Increment Refinancing Zone for a major development and if so why do you feel a TIRZ would help our city?
- In the past sub-divider paid all expenses to develop their property and recouped their expenses and profit from the buyers. Why do we need TIRZ?
- What are your plans public safety including police, fire and EMS with rapid growth facing Manvel.
- Is anything going to be done to remove the dirt put in the area surrounding Chocolate Bayou near the Naked Rib?
- How much in donations have you received from developers?
- Do you think at this time it is appropriate to have our mayor active in the daily running of city hall or would you promote the hiring of a full time city administrator if elected?
- If you do not win do you plan to continue to get involved with the city and if so what do you plan to do?
- Is enough being received from billing to pay the costs of the water and sewer system to include operating and loan costs? If not, how much is the Manvel taxpayer paying to make up the shortfall?
- Are you willing to put all the time and effort into your commitment?
Why are you running for a public office? Do you fee you or the community will benefit?
Question for Alvin School Board candidates:
- Can senior citizens be allowed to use the Manvel High School pool?
- Would you support doing away with TAKS testing for high school, junior high and elementary grades?
- Why do we have so many expensive administrators?
- I understand the second phase of Manvel High School was to start in January of the year. What is the delay?
Questions for Mayoral and City Council candidates:
- If the developers did not get TIRZ do you think they would not come here?
- Considering the future growth of Manvel and the ability of an area to control votes, how do you feel about single member districts?
- Do you believe the city will really realize a significant tax increase in the near term given most developments planned now are set up with MUD’s and TIRZ financing?
- Where do you see the City of Manvel’s growth being in 5 or 10 years? Why will citizens want to continue living here?
- Would you support a Tax Increment Refinancing Zone for a major development and if so why do you feel a TIRZ would help our city?
- In the past sub-divider paid all expenses to develop their property and recouped their expenses and profit from the buyers. Why do we need TIRZ?
- What are your plans public safety including police, fire and EMS with rapid growth facing Manvel.
- Is anything going to be done to remove the dirt put in the area surrounding Chocolate Bayou near the Naked Rib?
- How much in donations have you received from developers?
- Do you think at this time it is appropriate to have our mayor active in the daily running of city hall or would you promote the hiring of a full time city administrator if elected?
- If you do not win do you plan to continue to get involved with the city and if so what do you plan to do?
- Is enough being received from billing to pay the costs of the water and sewer system to include operating and loan costs? If not, how much is the Manvel taxpayer paying to make up the shortfall?
- Are you willing to put all the time and effort into your commitment?
Why are you running for a public office? Do you fee you or the community will benefit?
Question for Alvin School Board candidates:
- Can senior citizens be allowed to use the Manvel High School pool?
- Would you support doing away with TAKS testing for high school, junior high and elementary grades?
- Why do we have so many expensive administrators?
- I understand the second phase of Manvel High School was to start in January of the year. What is the delay?
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Information Lockdown
Apparently that's the official terminology for how an executive agency attempts to limit the damage that bad news can cause were it to get out. First step: Make sure it dosn't get out. Make sure the media doesn't get a hold of the story.
Here's the opening paragraph from today's NYT story on the on going story of the aftermath of Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan from friendly fire:
Here's the opening paragraph from today's NYT story on the on going story of the aftermath of Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan from friendly fire:
Within hours of Cpl. Pat Tillman’s death, the Army was engaged in an information lockdown. Phone and Internet connections were cut off at a base in Afghanistan. Guards
were posted on a wounded platoon mate of his. A captain ordered a noncommissioned officer to burn Corporal Tillman’s uniform.
A New Scandal
I'll try to unpack the relationships between the people listed in this story later, but a scandal may be brewing in the Education Department.
Whenever a government creates a program that mandates the purchase of an item, favors can be diverted to selected individuals who create that item. As long as the other party is not in a position to investigate--not in control of Congress--these things can stay hidden. Such is not the case, and is a further reminder of why elections, like 2006's, are so consequential.
By the way, note the role of the Justice Department in investigating this. Does independence matter?
Whenever a government creates a program that mandates the purchase of an item, favors can be diverted to selected individuals who create that item. As long as the other party is not in a position to investigate--not in control of Congress--these things can stay hidden. Such is not the case, and is a further reminder of why elections, like 2006's, are so consequential.
By the way, note the role of the Justice Department in investigating this. Does independence matter?
The Attorney General and the Unitary Executive
Slate magazine has a habit of turning conventional wisdom on its head by presenting intriguing arguments why a consensus appraisals of events are wrong.
Here Dahlia Lithwick claims that Alberto Gonzalez--who most argued did horribly in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee--actually performed admirably, given the job he was sent to do.
She argues that he was not there to defend his actions in the firing of the attorneys, but to prop up the unitary executive theory by--between the lines--claiming that Congress has few powers to compel the executive branch to do anything, much less oversee how it handles personnel issues like who gets to hold on to a job in the Justice Department.
Here's a quote:
Here Dahlia Lithwick claims that Alberto Gonzalez--who most argued did horribly in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee--actually performed admirably, given the job he was sent to do.
She argues that he was not there to defend his actions in the firing of the attorneys, but to prop up the unitary executive theory by--between the lines--claiming that Congress has few powers to compel the executive branch to do anything, much less oversee how it handles personnel issues like who gets to hold on to a job in the Justice Department.
Here's a quote:
Gonzales' failure to even mount a defense; his posture ofPresident Bush's support of his testimony later in the day were therefore not the result of delusion, but cunning. Critics of the attorney general don't understand that they are playing different games under different sets of rules. . Perhaps the Senate should enlarge its focus beyond this simple personnel matter and look at the larger issue of expansive presidential power.
barely tolerating congressional inquiries; his refusal to
concede that he owed the Senate any explanation or
any evidence; his refusal to even accept that he bore
some burden of proof—all of it tots up to a masterful
display of the perfect contempt felt by the Bush
executive branch for this Congress and its pretensions
of oversight. In the plainest sense, Gonzales elevated
the Bush legal doctrine of "Because I said so" into a
public spectacle.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Manvel Candidates Forum
Last night we (ACC) co-hosted along with the Alvin-Manvel Chamber of Commerce a forum for the candidates for Manvel's mayor, two city council positions, two Alvin Independent School District positions and two positions in for the Brazoria Navigation District.
I have opinions on which candidates did better than others but will hold my tongue in order to stay friends with everyone. As a general rule of thumb though, it's a good idea to prepare and have things to say prior to arrival.
I've posted a link to a voice recording of the forum on my class home page. Any locals, or anyone else interested in the concerns of a small Texas town undergoing tremendous change might find it worthwhile. The tape cut out after an hour and a half for some reason though, so the last hour was not recorded.
For those unaware of Manvel's existence (you know who you are) it's small in population, huge in area, and strategically located at the crossroads of two under-developed, but developing, highways 20 miles south of Houston. Major national developers are streaming in because Houston's expansion has been mostly to the north and west, and is close to being tapped out. The east has not witnessed much growth because Galveston Bay, the Port of Houston, and/or the chemical plants are in the way. This leaves the south as the only option available, and the recent growth has been significant.
Manvel is either the beneficiary or the victim depending on your attitude towards growth, and its inevitability was the primary topic of the forum.
Decisions made now will condition the city's future. Seldom do people have the opportunity to have lasting impacts on their community's future, but that's what the current leadership of Manvel can do. How much leeway will the developers have? How large will the lot sizes be? How large must the street be? What impact will all this have on drainage? What tax rates will be assessed? How might the city's charter be altered to compensate for the increased size? What financing structure works best?
There's no going back once these decisions have been made. The current mayor, Delores Martin, stated that Manvel's population may triple in the next 5-10 years due to the subdivisions now being built and planned.
Heady days indeed. And a great case study of a community in transition.
More to come.
I have opinions on which candidates did better than others but will hold my tongue in order to stay friends with everyone. As a general rule of thumb though, it's a good idea to prepare and have things to say prior to arrival.
I've posted a link to a voice recording of the forum on my class home page. Any locals, or anyone else interested in the concerns of a small Texas town undergoing tremendous change might find it worthwhile. The tape cut out after an hour and a half for some reason though, so the last hour was not recorded.
For those unaware of Manvel's existence (you know who you are) it's small in population, huge in area, and strategically located at the crossroads of two under-developed, but developing, highways 20 miles south of Houston. Major national developers are streaming in because Houston's expansion has been mostly to the north and west, and is close to being tapped out. The east has not witnessed much growth because Galveston Bay, the Port of Houston, and/or the chemical plants are in the way. This leaves the south as the only option available, and the recent growth has been significant.
Manvel is either the beneficiary or the victim depending on your attitude towards growth, and its inevitability was the primary topic of the forum.
Decisions made now will condition the city's future. Seldom do people have the opportunity to have lasting impacts on their community's future, but that's what the current leadership of Manvel can do. How much leeway will the developers have? How large will the lot sizes be? How large must the street be? What impact will all this have on drainage? What tax rates will be assessed? How might the city's charter be altered to compensate for the increased size? What financing structure works best?
There's no going back once these decisions have been made. The current mayor, Delores Martin, stated that Manvel's population may triple in the next 5-10 years due to the subdivisions now being built and planned.
Heady days indeed. And a great case study of a community in transition.
More to come.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Civil Rights and the Fetus/Child
This post bring to light a distinction that may become more prominent in the wake of the Supreme Court's abortion ruling, and its one the social conservatives have been angling for.
What is the legal status of a fetus?
I can't recall the last time I heard a pro-lifer say the word "fetus" for an obvious reason. If the "entity" is called a child then it can be subject to protections, notably those guaranteed in the 14th Amendment. To treat a person in utero differently than one that has been born would violate their civil rights. But this could also lead to unforeseen consequences since damages to the fetus/person would carry the same legal weight as that to the rest of us.
A potential legal field day me-thinks.
What is the legal status of a fetus?
I can't recall the last time I heard a pro-lifer say the word "fetus" for an obvious reason. If the "entity" is called a child then it can be subject to protections, notably those guaranteed in the 14th Amendment. To treat a person in utero differently than one that has been born would violate their civil rights. But this could also lead to unforeseen consequences since damages to the fetus/person would carry the same legal weight as that to the rest of us.
A potential legal field day me-thinks.
Creating Conventional Wisdom
Here's a take on a take on how stories become conventional wisdom.
It relates to previsous discussions we have had in 2301 concerning why certain stories become newsworthy.
It relates to previsous discussions we have had in 2301 concerning why certain stories become newsworthy.
Are Funeral Sanctuary Laws Constitutional?
The post below mentions efforts that states have adopted to limit the ability of Pastor Fred Phelps and his family to disturb the solemnity of funerals--especially military ones.
The pastor believes that American soldiers in Iraq died because of God's condemnation of the acceptance of homosexuality in the United States. He makes his case known, loudly, as close as he can get to the funeral services.
Considering that this is not just free speech, but the free expression of religious belief (let's assume his opinions are sincere), the Constitution seems to be on his side. The Supreme Court may decide that the greater interest of society in preserving the dignity of funeral services is more important than individual free speech and free expression, but then again it may not.
There is no right to dignified funerals guaranteed in the Constitution.
He may be labelled a public nuisance, or argued to be causing public disruptions that undermine public order, but that can apply to many other public events as well, and may justify an expansion of governmental authority beyond what is prudent.
Is Pastor Phelps another price we pay for living in a free society?
The First Amendment Center Weighs in on the topic here.
Here's a news item about a Kansas law against funeral picketing.
Shirley Phelps explains the picketing.
The pastor believes that American soldiers in Iraq died because of God's condemnation of the acceptance of homosexuality in the United States. He makes his case known, loudly, as close as he can get to the funeral services.
Considering that this is not just free speech, but the free expression of religious belief (let's assume his opinions are sincere), the Constitution seems to be on his side. The Supreme Court may decide that the greater interest of society in preserving the dignity of funeral services is more important than individual free speech and free expression, but then again it may not.
There is no right to dignified funerals guaranteed in the Constitution.
He may be labelled a public nuisance, or argued to be causing public disruptions that undermine public order, but that can apply to many other public events as well, and may justify an expansion of governmental authority beyond what is prudent.
Is Pastor Phelps another price we pay for living in a free society?
The First Amendment Center Weighs in on the topic here.
Here's a news item about a Kansas law against funeral picketing.
Shirley Phelps explains the picketing.
Roving Wiretaps
The Texas Senate wants to expand the application of a warrant to new technologies. The justification is homeland security, but it also applies to crimes not related to terrorism.
A necessary update or leading edge of a police state?
A necessary update or leading edge of a police state?
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Seismic Shift
That's what the mainstream news media calls the just released Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on the Partial Birth Abortion Act.
A few thoughts:
- For social conservatives, this justifies the Bush Presidency, no matter what else happens because it demonstrates the impact of the replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor with Samuel Alito.
- It shows that Anthony Kennedy is indeed the most powerful person in the U.S. and will be until there's another replacement on the court that alters its composition. Kennedy is the reason the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant and partial birth abortion has been outlawed. I'd expect him to be the 5th vote on more decisions.
- The line between the liberals and conservatives seems to be hardening.
- This may also be a consequence of the reduction of the number of women on the court--down to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
- Social conservatives will see opportunities to pass further limits on the abortion procedures, but...
- will have to be careful not to awaken moderates who favor access to abortion, but are not strong supporters of it. Remembers that Roe v. Wade was a rallying cry for the conservative movement. This could rally the other side.
Stay tuned.
A few thoughts:
- For social conservatives, this justifies the Bush Presidency, no matter what else happens because it demonstrates the impact of the replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor with Samuel Alito.
- It shows that Anthony Kennedy is indeed the most powerful person in the U.S. and will be until there's another replacement on the court that alters its composition. Kennedy is the reason the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant and partial birth abortion has been outlawed. I'd expect him to be the 5th vote on more decisions.
- The line between the liberals and conservatives seems to be hardening.
- This may also be a consequence of the reduction of the number of women on the court--down to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
- Social conservatives will see opportunities to pass further limits on the abortion procedures, but...
- will have to be careful not to awaken moderates who favor access to abortion, but are not strong supporters of it. Remembers that Roe v. Wade was a rallying cry for the conservative movement. This could rally the other side.
Stay tuned.
MySpace RIP's
Another use of the web.
People posting tributes to their friends who died in Virginia Tech on their MySpace pages.
Touching, and a bit eerie.
People posting tributes to their friends who died in Virginia Tech on their MySpace pages.
Touching, and a bit eerie.
Free Hate Speech
This may be the touchiest aspect of free speech. Are we free to articulate hatred? It's easy to say yes, but then you have to deal with people like this that make it very difficult to side with the First Amendment, though somehow you know you must.
story from the daily dish.
story from the daily dish.
Equal Protection and the District Attorney
While we cover civil rights in 2301 over the next two weeks, we should touch on recent cases involving the prosecution of--or attempts to prosecute--individuals that may have been fueled by racial anymosity.
The first fits the pattern we have grown to expect. 14 year old Shaquanda Cotton pushed a hall monitor in school and received an indeterminate sentence in a juvenile facility. The case drew national attention because she's African-American, white children had been given lesser sentences for greater crimes, her mother was an outspoken activist in the community, and Paris, Texas has a nasty racial history that includes public lynchings. Her prosecution was held by some to be intimidation by the white legal system of the African-American population.
The second does not fit this pattern. It's the accusation of rape against members of the Duke lacrosse team that was recently dropped by the district attorney, who has also since apologized. Critics of the district attorney argued that he drove the case forward in order to get the votes of the black community in Durham. Commentators have also pointed out how easy it was for the prosecution and the media to persuade the public that these people were guilty. Classic stereotypes of privileged rich kids out of control were readilty accepted. Was this reverse racism?
I posted below about the efforts of an interested bystander (Robert Johnson) to uncover the truth behind the Duke case by persistently posting blogs about it. Not surprisingly, the same thing occurred in the Shaquanda Cotton case. Here's the blog.
The web is turning out to be an effective instrument in allowing criminal defendants and their supporters to state their case.
The first fits the pattern we have grown to expect. 14 year old Shaquanda Cotton pushed a hall monitor in school and received an indeterminate sentence in a juvenile facility. The case drew national attention because she's African-American, white children had been given lesser sentences for greater crimes, her mother was an outspoken activist in the community, and Paris, Texas has a nasty racial history that includes public lynchings. Her prosecution was held by some to be intimidation by the white legal system of the African-American population.
The second does not fit this pattern. It's the accusation of rape against members of the Duke lacrosse team that was recently dropped by the district attorney, who has also since apologized. Critics of the district attorney argued that he drove the case forward in order to get the votes of the black community in Durham. Commentators have also pointed out how easy it was for the prosecution and the media to persuade the public that these people were guilty. Classic stereotypes of privileged rich kids out of control were readilty accepted. Was this reverse racism?
I posted below about the efforts of an interested bystander (Robert Johnson) to uncover the truth behind the Duke case by persistently posting blogs about it. Not surprisingly, the same thing occurred in the Shaquanda Cotton case. Here's the blog.
The web is turning out to be an effective instrument in allowing criminal defendants and their supporters to state their case.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Pulitzer Prizes
They were announced today.
If we have time we may go over them. I'd like to call attention to the prize given to Boston Globe reporter Charles Savage for uncovering President Bush's expansive use of presidential signing statements to effectively change the meaning of the bills Congress presents him for a signature. It has turned into an effective way to expand presidential power, though is argued by some to be potentially unconstitutional.
How soon before awards are given for web sites?
If we have time we may go over them. I'd like to call attention to the prize given to Boston Globe reporter Charles Savage for uncovering President Bush's expansive use of presidential signing statements to effectively change the meaning of the bills Congress presents him for a signature. It has turned into an effective way to expand presidential power, though is argued by some to be potentially unconstitutional.
How soon before awards are given for web sites?
Tragedy and Public Policymaking
When one tries to make sense of existing public policy, especially when it seems confusing, it is worth considering whether the establishment of that policy was motivated by a response to a tragedy or scandal.
Several shocking examples of child abuse decades back led to the child abuse policy. The murder of Laura Smithers led to similar legislation and additional attention to child abduction. The Enron scandal led to Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, and of course 9/11 led to substantive changes in airport security.
It should not be surprising then if the shooting spree in Virgina Tech leads to changes in gun policy, but the fight now seems to be what the nature of that change is likely to be.
Not long after the tragedy began, thanks to the speed of the internet, gun control policy became the dominant policy issue debated. Each side attempted to spin it in a manner beneficial to it's side.
Gun rights advocates claimed that this incident proves that gun laws must be lenient enough to allow people to purchase and conceal weapons that they can use to defend themselves, while gun control advocates stated that this shows that guns are too difficult to obtain. This is called framing--or spin. It has a bad connotation of course, but it is simply a reflection of the complexity of the issues we face.
Now, is this the appropriate time for legislatures to evaluate existing gun control laws, or should they hold off? Is this a time when the inertia built into the American constitutional system impedes the ability of the public to protect itself, or does it slow down the process sensibly so that bad policy is not passed?
Several shocking examples of child abuse decades back led to the child abuse policy. The murder of Laura Smithers led to similar legislation and additional attention to child abduction. The Enron scandal led to Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, and of course 9/11 led to substantive changes in airport security.
It should not be surprising then if the shooting spree in Virgina Tech leads to changes in gun policy, but the fight now seems to be what the nature of that change is likely to be.
Not long after the tragedy began, thanks to the speed of the internet, gun control policy became the dominant policy issue debated. Each side attempted to spin it in a manner beneficial to it's side.
Gun rights advocates claimed that this incident proves that gun laws must be lenient enough to allow people to purchase and conceal weapons that they can use to defend themselves, while gun control advocates stated that this shows that guns are too difficult to obtain. This is called framing--or spin. It has a bad connotation of course, but it is simply a reflection of the complexity of the issues we face.
Now, is this the appropriate time for legislatures to evaluate existing gun control laws, or should they hold off? Is this a time when the inertia built into the American constitutional system impedes the ability of the public to protect itself, or does it slow down the process sensibly so that bad policy is not passed?
Monday, April 16, 2007
Investigative Blogger
According to this story, one of the factors which led to the deterioration of the case against the Duke University lacrosse players was the persistence of Robert D. Johnson, a history professor from Brooklyn College.
Soon after the case began he began a blog (Durham-in-Wonderland) which he used to explore questions he developed concerning the merits of the case. His discoveries apparently guided the defendant's lawyers as they developed their defense.
Should we expect more of the same? Can weblog be effective tools for private citizens to bring attention to criminal cases they find problematic?
Soon after the case began he began a blog (Durham-in-Wonderland) which he used to explore questions he developed concerning the merits of the case. His discoveries apparently guided the defendant's lawyers as they developed their defense.
Should we expect more of the same? Can weblog be effective tools for private citizens to bring attention to criminal cases they find problematic?
Sunday, April 15, 2007
The Imus of 1775
I have a bad habit of assuming that the founding generation discussed politics at a high level across the board. J.L. Bell at Boston 1775 proves me wrong.
Candidate Forums
For any in the vicinity of Manvel and Alvin in the next couple of weeks we have candidate debates for elections in each city. The elections are scheduled for Saturday May 12.
This coming Thursday April 19 in the new Manvel High School on Highway 6 from 6pm - 8:30pm the we will hear from the following candidates
Mayor
Ira Stevenson Van Scoyoc
Delores M. Martin (Incumbent)
City Council Position #3
Gary Garnett (Incumbent)
Melody Lynn Hanson
City Council Position #5
Dwight Harrison
Connie Aucoin
J.T. (Buddy) Williams (Incumbent)
Alvin Independent School District Position 4
J.S. Hensler (incumbent)
Mike Lansford
Alvin Independent School District Position 5
Eddie Martinez
And on Tuesday May 1, in the Texas Room here on our lovely Alvin Community College campus
City Council District B
Kathleen Holton
City Council District C
Jim Landriault
City Council At Large Position 1
Bob Dillman
J. D. MacGregor
Ramiro Mondragon
and once again
Alvin Independent School District Position 4
J.S. Hensler (incumbent)
Mike Lansford
Alvin Independent School District Position 5
Eddie Martinez
Since AISD covers the cities of Alvin and Manvel, these candidates have been invited to both events.
Among the issues we expect covered are issues related to the growth projected for the local area, but this will depend on who comes and what questions they bring with them.
This coming Thursday April 19 in the new Manvel High School on Highway 6 from 6pm - 8:30pm the we will hear from the following candidates
Mayor
Ira Stevenson Van Scoyoc
Delores M. Martin (Incumbent)
City Council Position #3
Gary Garnett (Incumbent)
Melody Lynn Hanson
City Council Position #5
Dwight Harrison
Connie Aucoin
J.T. (Buddy) Williams (Incumbent)
Alvin Independent School District Position 4
J.S. Hensler (incumbent)
Mike Lansford
Alvin Independent School District Position 5
Eddie Martinez
And on Tuesday May 1, in the Texas Room here on our lovely Alvin Community College campus
City Council District B
Kathleen Holton
City Council District C
Jim Landriault
City Council At Large Position 1
Bob Dillman
J. D. MacGregor
Ramiro Mondragon
and once again
Alvin Independent School District Position 4
J.S. Hensler (incumbent)
Mike Lansford
Alvin Independent School District Position 5
Eddie Martinez
Since AISD covers the cities of Alvin and Manvel, these candidates have been invited to both events.
Among the issues we expect covered are issues related to the growth projected for the local area, but this will depend on who comes and what questions they bring with them.
Free Speech and the Presidential Forum
Can members of the president's staff lawfully remove from a presidential forum people who they believe may be disruptive because they had antiwar bumper stickers on their car when they arrived?
Here's the story.
It involves first amendment protections on the one hand and public order issues on the other. The caveat is that this was not an actual disruption, but the prevention of possible disruption by the inclusion in the hall of people with obviously different points of view. This will be good material for my 2301's as we get into civil liberties this week.
As an aside: How would Scalia and Roberts rule on this question. Remember that they argued that the state of Massachusetts lacked standing to sue the EPA because global warming posed a potential threat, not one that has caused any real harm to the state at the moment. Would they rule that for the ejectees since they did not in fact cause a disruption?
Here's the story.
It involves first amendment protections on the one hand and public order issues on the other. The caveat is that this was not an actual disruption, but the prevention of possible disruption by the inclusion in the hall of people with obviously different points of view. This will be good material for my 2301's as we get into civil liberties this week.
As an aside: How would Scalia and Roberts rule on this question. Remember that they argued that the state of Massachusetts lacked standing to sue the EPA because global warming posed a potential threat, not one that has caused any real harm to the state at the moment. Would they rule that for the ejectees since they did not in fact cause a disruption?
re-de-reg?
In local news applicable to our upcoming coverage in 2302-4 on economic policymaking, the chron has a story covering recent criticisms by Houston mayor Bill White and State Representative Sylvester Turner about the consequences of electricity deregulation in the state for poor people specifically, and the state as a whole in general.
Promises of assistance for poor consumers who tend to live in older, less efficient homes has yet to materialize and the state now has per kilowatt electricity rates higher than the national average.
At one point the state regulated the electricity market and traded monopoly rights for loss of industry control over prices charged to consumers. Free market proponents argued that these arrangements stifled innovation by locking in existing technology. Change and innovation only occur in a competitive market. Competition also lead to lower prices because consumers will choose to buy electricity from producers who provide the best service at the lowest price.
Critics argue that this has not occurred in Texas. White is quoted in the story sating that we now have two monopolies in an unregulated market. He does not go on to say that price fixing is now occurring, but its a possibility that Adam Smith raised. In his Wealth of Nations, which argued for the virtues of unregulated markets, he cautioned that businessmen cannot met with each other without out talking about price fixing.
Expect other critics to be less cautious.
For more info on electricity deregulation click the following:
- an overview of the politics in opensecrets.org.
- a critical appraisal of recent proposals in California by the Mies Institute.
- criticism by Public Citizen.
- the home page of Texas Electricity Choice.
- a wikipedia entry on deregulation in Texas.
It worth noting that the forum was hosted by ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) a non-profit group which advocates for the poor. The fight over regulating electricity is a good illustration of the interest group conflict. Industry groups vs. community groups.
Promises of assistance for poor consumers who tend to live in older, less efficient homes has yet to materialize and the state now has per kilowatt electricity rates higher than the national average.
At one point the state regulated the electricity market and traded monopoly rights for loss of industry control over prices charged to consumers. Free market proponents argued that these arrangements stifled innovation by locking in existing technology. Change and innovation only occur in a competitive market. Competition also lead to lower prices because consumers will choose to buy electricity from producers who provide the best service at the lowest price.
Critics argue that this has not occurred in Texas. White is quoted in the story sating that we now have two monopolies in an unregulated market. He does not go on to say that price fixing is now occurring, but its a possibility that Adam Smith raised. In his Wealth of Nations, which argued for the virtues of unregulated markets, he cautioned that businessmen cannot met with each other without out talking about price fixing.
Expect other critics to be less cautious.
For more info on electricity deregulation click the following:
- an overview of the politics in opensecrets.org.
- a critical appraisal of recent proposals in California by the Mies Institute.
- criticism by Public Citizen.
- the home page of Texas Electricity Choice.
- a wikipedia entry on deregulation in Texas.
It worth noting that the forum was hosted by ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) a non-profit group which advocates for the poor. The fight over regulating electricity is a good illustration of the interest group conflict. Industry groups vs. community groups.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
The Osprey
Today's New York Times provides the latest on a terrific example of the policy consequences of the sub governments that develop around pet projects.
It's the V-22 Osprey, a tiltrotor aircraft that the leadership of the Marines has been hoping to build for over 20 years. It's about to see it's first action in war this September.
Why the wait? It has a nasty habit of killing people, including 26 marines, in test flights. Opponents to the program included Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney under Bush 1, who tried four times to cut it from the military budget.
Why has it survived?
Here's the key quote form the NYT story: "But, from 1989 to 1992, Mr. Cheney was beaten back by Congress. Work on the project — the Boeing Company and Bell Helicopter Textron are the main contractors — is spread across 40 states and 2,000 subcontractors, giving the V-22 broad support. More than 100 members of Congress even formed a Tiltrotor Technology Coalition to protect it."
The project also gained influential supporters at the highest level of the Marines. People whose positions of leadership may be based on continuation of the project.
It's the V-22 Osprey, a tiltrotor aircraft that the leadership of the Marines has been hoping to build for over 20 years. It's about to see it's first action in war this September.
Why the wait? It has a nasty habit of killing people, including 26 marines, in test flights. Opponents to the program included Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney under Bush 1, who tried four times to cut it from the military budget.
Why has it survived?
Here's the key quote form the NYT story: "But, from 1989 to 1992, Mr. Cheney was beaten back by Congress. Work on the project — the Boeing Company and Bell Helicopter Textron are the main contractors — is spread across 40 states and 2,000 subcontractors, giving the V-22 broad support. More than 100 members of Congress even formed a Tiltrotor Technology Coalition to protect it."
The project also gained influential supporters at the highest level of the Marines. People whose positions of leadership may be based on continuation of the project.
Friday, April 13, 2007
It's the latest web sensation.
You can let the entire world know what you are doing right now . . . I mean now . . . no now.
If you can make them care, but maybe they do.
You can let the entire world know what you are doing right now . . . I mean now . . . no now.
If you can make them care, but maybe they do.
The Religious Viewpoint Anti-Discrimination Act
The Texas House State Affairs Committee has begun hearing testimony on a bill that "would guarantee youngsters the freedom to express their religious beliefs at school."
The Religious Viewpoint Anti-Discrimination Act was written by Warren Chisum and Charlie Howard and has been sponsored by a handful of House members including our own Mike O'Day and Dennis Bonnen.
The bill is a response to allegations that students in K-12 schools have been punished for expressing their religious beliefs. Governor Perry has endorsed it and stated that it simply would allow for more discussion: "Discussion does not lead to indoctrination. Rather, it leads to open-mindedness and personal and educational betterment."
A blogger at the Chron wonders that since free expression (a civil liberty my 2301's will be covering shortly) is already guaranteed by the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, is the bill really necessary? Howard states that it is because it will codify into Texas law what the courts have already mandated.
The Religious Viewpoint Anti-Discrimination Act was written by Warren Chisum and Charlie Howard and has been sponsored by a handful of House members including our own Mike O'Day and Dennis Bonnen.
The bill is a response to allegations that students in K-12 schools have been punished for expressing their religious beliefs. Governor Perry has endorsed it and stated that it simply would allow for more discussion: "Discussion does not lead to indoctrination. Rather, it leads to open-mindedness and personal and educational betterment."
A blogger at the Chron wonders that since free expression (a civil liberty my 2301's will be covering shortly) is already guaranteed by the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, is the bill really necessary? Howard states that it is because it will codify into Texas law what the courts have already mandated.
When a Lease is not a Lease
its a service agreement.
Who cares? The Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation and the city of Houston.
If a lease is a lease, the center has to vacate property rented to it by the city for 99 years in the early 1960s. If its a service agreement, they dont.
We'll get into the politics of this later. Use this Chron blog entry as a starting point to catch up on the story.
Its a classic big v little guy match up.
Who cares? The Center Serving Persons with Mental Retardation and the city of Houston.
If a lease is a lease, the center has to vacate property rented to it by the city for 99 years in the early 1960s. If its a service agreement, they dont.
We'll get into the politics of this later. Use this Chron blog entry as a starting point to catch up on the story.
Its a classic big v little guy match up.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The Revolving Door / Iron Triangle
In response to a challenge, here are a few websites that provide information about what is called the "revolving door" between government and industry.
- SourceWatch
- OpenSecrets
- RevolvingDoor
- Public Citizen
There's more available, but these seem to do a good job of outlining actual examples of people shifting from positions in Congress, the executive branch and interest groups. The connection between interest groups and the executive branch is agency capture. We've covered this in both 2301 and 2302 when we discussed iron triangles and sub-governments. They can be useful means of overcoming the difficulties check and balances can pose for efficient policymaking, but can lead to political stagnation and also ensure that economic benefits stay contained within a small set of actors.
We'll outline some of these specific relationships in the near future.
- SourceWatch
- OpenSecrets
- RevolvingDoor
- Public Citizen
There's more available, but these seem to do a good job of outlining actual examples of people shifting from positions in Congress, the executive branch and interest groups. The connection between interest groups and the executive branch is agency capture. We've covered this in both 2301 and 2302 when we discussed iron triangles and sub-governments. They can be useful means of overcoming the difficulties check and balances can pose for efficient policymaking, but can lead to political stagnation and also ensure that economic benefits stay contained within a small set of actors.
We'll outline some of these specific relationships in the near future.
Agency Capture
In my TTH 2301 class today we brought up the topic of agency capture, specifically concerning the Federal Communications Commission. Chris mentioned the connection between Clear Channel Communications and the Bush Administration and thought I was familar with the argument, I had no specific information at the time. Here's a link that lays out some of the connections.
You may also wants to check out this page at opensecrets.org that shows how much telecommunications companies gave to each political party during the 2004 electoral cycle. Clear Channel was not among the president's top contributors in 2004.
You may also wants to check out this page at opensecrets.org that shows how much telecommunications companies gave to each political party during the 2004 electoral cycle. Clear Channel was not among the president's top contributors in 2004.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Iraq, Democrats, and the Responsible Party Model
I had the pleasure of picking up a class for Elizabeth McLane and went over the power point slides for the political parties chapter in the Lowi, Ginsburg, Shepsle textbook.
A discussion picked up when we covered the responsible party model and applied it to the current efforts of the Democrats to impose a timetable on our involvement in Iraq. The Responsible Party Model, which was an effort by the American Political Science Association to ensure that parties are meaningful instruments of democratic choice, holds that "An effective party system requires, first, that the parties are able to bring forth programs to which they commit themselves and, second, that the parties possess sufficient internal cohesion to carry out these programs."
Regardless of one's opinion on what the Democrats are up to, and the wisdom of imposing a time limit, would the Democrats be negligent in their duty as a responsible party if they not seek to impose a time limit? It is generally conceded that the 2006 election was a referendum on the Iraq War, so the Democrats are the majority party for a reason. If they do not go forward with opposition to the war they could be undermining democracy at home. Voters opposed to the war wont really know whether they can trust the Democrats to do what they say they will do if they continue to voice opposition to the war.
One could also argue that it is important that one of the presidential candidates, John McCain, seems to be basing his campaign on support for the existing policy. Voters may have a choice, and this is what makes political parties vital instruments of democratic politics.
At least that's what the model holds. Is it wrong?
A discussion picked up when we covered the responsible party model and applied it to the current efforts of the Democrats to impose a timetable on our involvement in Iraq. The Responsible Party Model, which was an effort by the American Political Science Association to ensure that parties are meaningful instruments of democratic choice, holds that "An effective party system requires, first, that the parties are able to bring forth programs to which they commit themselves and, second, that the parties possess sufficient internal cohesion to carry out these programs."
Regardless of one's opinion on what the Democrats are up to, and the wisdom of imposing a time limit, would the Democrats be negligent in their duty as a responsible party if they not seek to impose a time limit? It is generally conceded that the 2006 election was a referendum on the Iraq War, so the Democrats are the majority party for a reason. If they do not go forward with opposition to the war they could be undermining democracy at home. Voters opposed to the war wont really know whether they can trust the Democrats to do what they say they will do if they continue to voice opposition to the war.
One could also argue that it is important that one of the presidential candidates, John McCain, seems to be basing his campaign on support for the existing policy. Voters may have a choice, and this is what makes political parties vital instruments of democratic politics.
At least that's what the model holds. Is it wrong?
War Czar, part 2
Regarding my post below, some commentators have wondered why we need a war czar when we have a commander in chief? Isn't it the president's job to coordinate military policy?
Explain Don Imus to Me
Please.
Yes I understand that he--and the rest of the shock jocks--boost ratings, which increases ad revenues, which increase media profits, which expand the availability of media outlets, which expands the possibility of democratic government, which makes the sky bluer and flowers sweeter smelling and puppies cuter and reduces acne, but still...
His recent comments--which have dominated mainstream media and the blogosphere--are hardly the only controversial statements he's made over the years. Yet his radio and television program has become (perhaps that ought to be past tense) a necessary stop for most political players over the past few years.
Why is he taken seriously? And add to the mix the range of talking heads whose careers are based on mean, shrill commentary. They only have a platform because we build it for them. We pay attention.
Why?
Yes I understand that he--and the rest of the shock jocks--boost ratings, which increases ad revenues, which increase media profits, which expand the availability of media outlets, which expands the possibility of democratic government, which makes the sky bluer and flowers sweeter smelling and puppies cuter and reduces acne, but still...
His recent comments--which have dominated mainstream media and the blogosphere--are hardly the only controversial statements he's made over the years. Yet his radio and television program has become (perhaps that ought to be past tense) a necessary stop for most political players over the past few years.
Why is he taken seriously? And add to the mix the range of talking heads whose careers are based on mean, shrill commentary. They only have a platform because we build it for them. We pay attention.
Why?
Robert Mugabe
After helping free Zimbabwe, then Rhodesia, from colonial control, Robert Mugabe drifted into old-school dictatorship.
Media stories have highlighted recent difficulties he has had retaining control. Click here for details on how his current actions are leading to eforts to resist his rule.
Media stories have highlighted recent difficulties he has had retaining control. Click here for details on how his current actions are leading to eforts to resist his rule.
Voter Fraud, Real and/or Imagined
The New York Times reports today on ongoing disputes concerning voter fraud.
Traditionally, Republicans have argued that voter fraud is pervasive and that voters are not intimidated when they come to the polls. Democrats argue the opposite, that fraud is not a problem, but voter intimidation is.
The current controversy concerns whether voter fraud has in fact been pervasive recently. A draft of a report commissioned by the Election Assistance Commission stated that it was not, which seems to have not been the conclusion the commission wanted. The final report stated that the evidence was inconclusive. Critics wonder whether the preliminary results were watered down purposefully.
This is ultimately an electoral dispute because more people identify with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party and if they all show up to vote, Democrats win. But since the Democratic coalition includes poorer and minority voters who may not have proper identification, requiring ID suppresses their ability to vote. Fewer voting Democrats, greater Republican success.
Of course we have the right to demand that only legitimate voters be able to vote and the the process be conducted fairly, so a dilemma lies at the heart of this dispute, but I believe it is fair to assume that the overriding concern is victory. As my 2301's remember, similar accusations confronted the Progressives who were accused of cleaning up politics by limiting participation by the poor.
The story points out that this issue underlies attorneygate. The fired attorneys were not aggressively pushing voter fraud cases, which in turn points out the conflict that exists between the political and bureaucratic wings of the executive. The careerists attorneys consider themselves above politics, the White House does not.
Traditionally, Republicans have argued that voter fraud is pervasive and that voters are not intimidated when they come to the polls. Democrats argue the opposite, that fraud is not a problem, but voter intimidation is.
The current controversy concerns whether voter fraud has in fact been pervasive recently. A draft of a report commissioned by the Election Assistance Commission stated that it was not, which seems to have not been the conclusion the commission wanted. The final report stated that the evidence was inconclusive. Critics wonder whether the preliminary results were watered down purposefully.
This is ultimately an electoral dispute because more people identify with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party and if they all show up to vote, Democrats win. But since the Democratic coalition includes poorer and minority voters who may not have proper identification, requiring ID suppresses their ability to vote. Fewer voting Democrats, greater Republican success.
Of course we have the right to demand that only legitimate voters be able to vote and the the process be conducted fairly, so a dilemma lies at the heart of this dispute, but I believe it is fair to assume that the overriding concern is victory. As my 2301's remember, similar accusations confronted the Progressives who were accused of cleaning up politics by limiting participation by the poor.
The story points out that this issue underlies attorneygate. The fired attorneys were not aggressively pushing voter fraud cases, which in turn points out the conflict that exists between the political and bureaucratic wings of the executive. The careerists attorneys consider themselves above politics, the White House does not.
War Czar
Words like "czar" always make me nervous, especially when they are used to describe administration officials. The intent is to make it more likely that the official can get their designated job done by streamlining the bureaucratic system underlying the job. This has its benefits of course, but one person's efficiency is another's tyranny.
Past "czars" have been appointed over energy and drugs, but now a story has appeared in the Washington Post on the President's so far unsuccessful search for a war czar.
The anti-federalists were nervous about the single headed executive established in Article II of the Constitution because they thought it would lead to the development of a military-king, a czar if you will.
Were they right to be fearful? Is it a good sign that there have been no takers thus far? Or perhaps an ominous sign? What type of person is likely to take the job? Perhaps the story is intended to be a trial balloon that the administration will float up in order to determine whether the public will support the creation of the office. If the reaction is negative, they will pull support. This assumes that the administration cares about public opinion of course.
Past "czars" have been appointed over energy and drugs, but now a story has appeared in the Washington Post on the President's so far unsuccessful search for a war czar.
The anti-federalists were nervous about the single headed executive established in Article II of the Constitution because they thought it would lead to the development of a military-king, a czar if you will.
Were they right to be fearful? Is it a good sign that there have been no takers thus far? Or perhaps an ominous sign? What type of person is likely to take the job? Perhaps the story is intended to be a trial balloon that the administration will float up in order to determine whether the public will support the creation of the office. If the reaction is negative, they will pull support. This assumes that the administration cares about public opinion of course.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
A Study of Media Bias
My apologies for forgetting how I stumbled across this report. It's just over a year old from UCLA and purports to be the first to find a truly objective way to assess media bias. Bias is line of study that is difficult to explore in an unbiased manner, so the researchers deserve applause for making the attempt, though I'm sure there are other ways to over come it--possibly yielding different results.
They looked at the citation patterns of major news sources (whether they referred to interest groups and think tanks that tend to lean to the left) and compared these patterns to members of Congress that also referred to those groups. They then assigned the ADA score given to the member of Congress to the media source.
What is an ADA score you ask? It's the score that the Americans for Democratic Action assign to members of Congress based on an analysis of their voting record. 100 means most liberal, 0 means most conservative. Many groups do similar studies. It can often be used as guide for whom to support and whom to oppose in an election.
That's (roughly) the methodology, here are some results. The results, as should be expected, confirm some hunches and disprove others.
- 18 of 20 media outlets leaned to the left, but
- the Wall Street Journal news pages (not the editorial pages) were most liberal, followed by
#2 - CBS' "Evening News"
#3 - The New York Times
#4 - The Los Angeles Times
The most conservative source of news were:
- Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume"
- The Washington Times
The most centrist sources were
- the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer"
- CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown"
- ABC's "Good Morning America"
A huge surprise was that the Drudge Report, an online news source, scored liberal but the authors believe that that has less to do with Matt Drudge's own positions than with those of the stories he links to.
The authors suggest that: "If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news."
Fine, but what's the fun in that?
They looked at the citation patterns of major news sources (whether they referred to interest groups and think tanks that tend to lean to the left) and compared these patterns to members of Congress that also referred to those groups. They then assigned the ADA score given to the member of Congress to the media source.
What is an ADA score you ask? It's the score that the Americans for Democratic Action assign to members of Congress based on an analysis of their voting record. 100 means most liberal, 0 means most conservative. Many groups do similar studies. It can often be used as guide for whom to support and whom to oppose in an election.
That's (roughly) the methodology, here are some results. The results, as should be expected, confirm some hunches and disprove others.
- 18 of 20 media outlets leaned to the left, but
- the Wall Street Journal news pages (not the editorial pages) were most liberal, followed by
#2 - CBS' "Evening News"
#3 - The New York Times
#4 - The Los Angeles Times
The most conservative source of news were:
- Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume"
- The Washington Times
The most centrist sources were
- the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer"
- CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown"
- ABC's "Good Morning America"
A huge surprise was that the Drudge Report, an online news source, scored liberal but the authors believe that that has less to do with Matt Drudge's own positions than with those of the stories he links to.
The authors suggest that: "If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news."
Fine, but what's the fun in that?
Monday, April 9, 2007
potus v bureaucracy
In 2302, section 2 we discussed the tension that often develops between the political appointees of the White House and the long time civil servants whose tenure in office overlaps several administrations. I fumbled for examples, but attorneygate provides some fresh ones.
Like the recent appointment of Rachel Paulose as U.S. Attorney for the district of Minnesota.
Like the recent appointment of Rachel Paulose as U.S. Attorney for the district of Minnesota.
Judicial Activism
The Cato Institute is publishing a book that makes a case for it.
A restrained judiciary may allow the executive and legislative branches to step on civil liberties.
Read: A Cheer for Judicial Activism.
A restrained judiciary may allow the executive and legislative branches to step on civil liberties.
Read: A Cheer for Judicial Activism.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Mass v. EPA, Part 2
The fallout over Massachusetts v. EPA continues and as time progresses commentators are focusing more on the nuances of the case. Some of this we've covered in class, some (most) we haven't.
Here's a Sunday piece by Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times' Supreme Court corespondent. She focuses on Roberts' dissenting opinion and the limited concept of standing he outlines in it. As we discussed in class, that may be the central dispute between the majority and dissenting opinions. The majority sees the court as an appropriate venue for these issues to be heard, the minority does not.
This is a classic dispute between those who see the court's as an active participant in policy and those who do not. This has nothing to do with the seriouseness of the issue, just the forum where it can legitimately be addressed. When we discuss the shift of the courts to the right over the past three or four decades, this is the sort of issue we are talking about.
Here's a Sunday piece by Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times' Supreme Court corespondent. She focuses on Roberts' dissenting opinion and the limited concept of standing he outlines in it. As we discussed in class, that may be the central dispute between the majority and dissenting opinions. The majority sees the court as an appropriate venue for these issues to be heard, the minority does not.
This is a classic dispute between those who see the court's as an active participant in policy and those who do not. This has nothing to do with the seriouseness of the issue, just the forum where it can legitimately be addressed. When we discuss the shift of the courts to the right over the past three or four decades, this is the sort of issue we are talking about.
In a land with no 5th Amendment:
from 3quarks daily comes a story from Poland about the law of lustration, something I was not aware of until now. Lustration is a form of purification, in this case anyone affiliated with the communist regime, must confess it. Some risk losing their jobs if they did, all face it if they refuse to fess up.
The commentators trace this law to Catholicism, and it does have a wiff of the inquisition about it. Though the inquisition aquired a negative reputation for obvious reasons, the purpose of the process was to actually find the truth behind whatever case was brought forward. Our is an adversarial system where two sides of an argument compete to influence an impartial group of citizens.
At the heart of the adversarial system lies the notion that freedom includes the ability to not have to incriminate yourself. The inquisitorial system does not. You have to lay out what happened, or you can be held accountable.
My question is this, though we are conditioned to believe that our judicial system is better than those of other countries, do we secretly long for the truth promised by an inquisition? So much of our criticisms of the legal process focus on crafty lawyers, idiotic juries, and dishonest defendants pleading the 5th Amendment that I strongly believe that a majority of Americans could be persuaded to change it all if given the chance. Our commitment to individual rights is rather thin.
Am I off base?
The commentators trace this law to Catholicism, and it does have a wiff of the inquisition about it. Though the inquisition aquired a negative reputation for obvious reasons, the purpose of the process was to actually find the truth behind whatever case was brought forward. Our is an adversarial system where two sides of an argument compete to influence an impartial group of citizens.
At the heart of the adversarial system lies the notion that freedom includes the ability to not have to incriminate yourself. The inquisitorial system does not. You have to lay out what happened, or you can be held accountable.
My question is this, though we are conditioned to believe that our judicial system is better than those of other countries, do we secretly long for the truth promised by an inquisition? So much of our criticisms of the legal process focus on crafty lawyers, idiotic juries, and dishonest defendants pleading the 5th Amendment that I strongly believe that a majority of Americans could be persuaded to change it all if given the chance. Our commitment to individual rights is rather thin.
Am I off base?
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Self Esteem
There's a move underway challenging K-12's focus on self-esteem. Current theory holds that self esteem comes first, then learning. Increasing numbers argue that it should be the other way around.
Though I'm no expert on the subject, my years in the cc classroom have led me to believe that students know far less than they think they know, and the one's who are the most self critical seem to perform the best.
Though I'm no expert on the subject, my years in the cc classroom have led me to believe that students know far less than they think they know, and the one's who are the most self critical seem to perform the best.
Is this really a good idea?
Let me begin by saying that I support the right of people to hunt, and I also believe that we, as a society, should do all we can to enable those with disabilities to enjoy as full a life as those of us without disabilities (allegedly) do.
With that out of the way, do we want the blind to be able to hunt?
Here's a link to the bill in question and the bill's sponsor.
With that out of the way, do we want the blind to be able to hunt?
Here's a link to the bill in question and the bill's sponsor.
Chad Vader
OK I must admit that I'm just slightly depressed that the Geico Caveman's Crib has been the most popular post I've put up, but I'm not only going with the flow, I'll do one better.
Meet Chad Vader, Darth's "less charismatic" younger brother.
Meet Chad Vader, Darth's "less charismatic" younger brother.
Law Schools and the Law
The recent resignation of Monica Goodling from the Justice Department has shed light on the number of lawyers in the Bush Administration who have been trained at Pat Robertons' Regent University Law School. Read more about this from Slate.
Both Mr. Robertson and Jerry Faldwell have been upfront in their desire to change the course of the legal system in the United States in a direction that in their minds more accurately reflects the intentions on the country's founders. Here's a site that provides background on their position.
Both Mr. Robertson and Jerry Faldwell have been upfront in their desire to change the course of the legal system in the United States in a direction that in their minds more accurately reflects the intentions on the country's founders. Here's a site that provides background on their position.
Friday, April 6, 2007
On Peace
Is humanity becoming more peaceful? Despite well documented attrocities over the past century or so, Steven Pinker says that we are and offers proof.
Part of the reason is the development of governments that claim monopolies on the use of coercive power. Without it, you and I must rely on vigilante force and vendettas to solve disputes--often preemptive and homicidal.
Greater media coverage allows us to empathize with a larger group of people than just our own clan, making us less likely to act out violently than we may have in the past. We are less likely to want to kill those we recogize as human.
Maybe governments are justified after all.
Part of the reason is the development of governments that claim monopolies on the use of coercive power. Without it, you and I must rely on vigilante force and vendettas to solve disputes--often preemptive and homicidal.
Greater media coverage allows us to empathize with a larger group of people than just our own clan, making us less likely to act out violently than we may have in the past. We are less likely to want to kill those we recogize as human.
Maybe governments are justified after all.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Look who is lobbying . . .
. . . for marijuana legalization group, the Marijuana Policy Project: Bob Barr. As a member of Congress, Mr. Barr managed the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. He has since distanced himself from his old party and joined the Libertarian Party.
He states that recent expansions of governmental power have led him to become an advocate for civil liberty protections.
He states that recent expansions of governmental power have led him to become an advocate for civil liberty protections.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
The Supreme Court Rules that the EPA must Confront Global Warming
The Supreme Court gave the environmental movement a very narrow victory yesterday in Massachusetts v. EPA, which dealt specifically with whether a governmental agency (the EPA) was negligent in not carrying out its mission in the manner in which some felt it was required to. In brief, several states and cities brought suit against the EPA to force it to regulate carbon dioxide (specifcally tailpipe emissions) as a pollutant, or to not interfere with the ability of the states to regulate them. The EPA claimed that it lacked jurisdiction to regulate carbon dioxide.
The case is as much about the relationship between the bureaucracy and Congress, and the states and the federal government, as it is about the environment. Can the discretion a bureaucratic agency has in rulemaking negate the intent of the statute the agancy was required to implement? How do we define the jurisdiction of the agency?
The vote also reinforces the notion that the current Supreme Court is composed of two factions of four (the liberals and the conservatives), with the deciding vote resting with Anthony Kennedy.
Since my 2302's are covering the courts at the moment, and this case illustrates many of the points I'm trying to make, we ought to go over parts of it. I'll need more time to digest the case, but here are three contentious parst of the case:
Standing: A key dispute between the majority and the dissenters concerns whether this is a case that the courts have jurisdiction. The dissenters argue that there is no injury suffered by the inaction of the EPA, so the plaintiff's lack standing to sue. The majority points out that standing does not only refer to actual injury, but to imminent injury as well. The failure to act, leads to injuries suffered, or to be suffered, by the state.
The Court's jurisdiction: For the dissenters, the issue was less the power of government to go forward, than the effort of the states to force the federal government to go forward, by going to the courts, when it did not want to. The majority held that this was a legitimate concern.
Strict and loose interpretations of statutory and constitutional language: The statutory language at issue is the defintion of "pollutant." Carbon dioxide isn't normally a pollutant, plants live on it after all, so a narrow definition would not allow for governmental regulation, but its interaction with the atmosphere causes conditions that might require governmental action. If that interaction can be defined loosely as pollution, then government is permitted to go forward.
Given that this was a 5-4 decision, it is unwise to read too much into it. If Kennedy had decided to go the other way, the EPA would have won.
For background, click here for the wikipedia entry on the case.
The case is as much about the relationship between the bureaucracy and Congress, and the states and the federal government, as it is about the environment. Can the discretion a bureaucratic agency has in rulemaking negate the intent of the statute the agancy was required to implement? How do we define the jurisdiction of the agency?
The vote also reinforces the notion that the current Supreme Court is composed of two factions of four (the liberals and the conservatives), with the deciding vote resting with Anthony Kennedy.
Since my 2302's are covering the courts at the moment, and this case illustrates many of the points I'm trying to make, we ought to go over parts of it. I'll need more time to digest the case, but here are three contentious parst of the case:
Standing: A key dispute between the majority and the dissenters concerns whether this is a case that the courts have jurisdiction. The dissenters argue that there is no injury suffered by the inaction of the EPA, so the plaintiff's lack standing to sue. The majority points out that standing does not only refer to actual injury, but to imminent injury as well. The failure to act, leads to injuries suffered, or to be suffered, by the state.
The Court's jurisdiction: For the dissenters, the issue was less the power of government to go forward, than the effort of the states to force the federal government to go forward, by going to the courts, when it did not want to. The majority held that this was a legitimate concern.
Strict and loose interpretations of statutory and constitutional language: The statutory language at issue is the defintion of "pollutant." Carbon dioxide isn't normally a pollutant, plants live on it after all, so a narrow definition would not allow for governmental regulation, but its interaction with the atmosphere causes conditions that might require governmental action. If that interaction can be defined loosely as pollution, then government is permitted to go forward.
Given that this was a 5-4 decision, it is unwise to read too much into it. If Kennedy had decided to go the other way, the EPA would have won.
For background, click here for the wikipedia entry on the case.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Gen X for President
Looking through the material on generational politics I just realized that Barack Obama is the first member of Generation X to run for president. This may be a disputed point because some say that X'ers begin with those born in 1961, which means he is, while other say he was born in 1964, which means he isn't. I recall someone arguing that a boomer must be old enough to remember the Kennedy assassination.
So, do we want a slacker president? Or is the label accurate?
So, do we want a slacker president? Or is the label accurate?
The WWI Generation
I mispoke in my 2301 classes recently when I stated that the last WWI veteran had died. It was in fact the last female WWI veteran, but the point regarding generational politics is still valid.
It's a fact of life that we die eventually, and a fact of political life that living memory of key moments in history dies off as well. The voice of experience expires. All that's left is the written record and myth, for better or worse.
FYI: Here's a post from a few months back on living in a baby boomer's world.
It's a fact of life that we die eventually, and a fact of political life that living memory of key moments in history dies off as well. The voice of experience expires. All that's left is the written record and myth, for better or worse.
FYI: Here's a post from a few months back on living in a baby boomer's world.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
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. . .
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. . .
Friday, March 30, 2007
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?
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?
Thursday, March 29, 2007
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:
Maybe this is good news. You can have that happy childhood after all.
Here a neuroscientist discusses how the brain restructures itself when memories are called up:
Neuroscience now knows that every time we rememberWe don't remember what happened, we remember what we want to have happened.
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.
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?
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?
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.
- 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.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
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?
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?
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.
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.
Friday, March 23, 2007
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.
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.
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:
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 inIn 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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
And is it too early (or ridiculous) to call this attorneygate?
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
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:
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.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"It's crazy," he said. "It's like having a mini-constitutionalI'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.
convention every time you pick a Supreme Court justice."
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.
Monday, March 19, 2007
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.
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.
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:
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.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
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.
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.
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:
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?
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, arguingNotice 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:
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.
What matters most to him is whether the statute unjustlyMy 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.
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."
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?
Saturday, March 17, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Friday, March 9, 2007
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:
We'll stay on this subject.
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."Critics weigh in however and claim that his legacy will be marked more by increased polarization in politics.
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."
We'll stay on this subject.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)