In light of the video I showed in a couple of classes Monday about government outreach efforts for schizophrenics--from The Onion--Wired also has a list of its favorite conspiracy theories.
Joking aside conspiracy theories provide a useful service for people who believe in them. It helps them make sense of the world around them. One begins with a belief about how the world works and processes information to confirm that belief. That the results can be nutty is besides the point.
After all, just because you aren't paranoid doesn't men that people aren't really out to get you.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
GIS and elections
A story in Wired Magazine from three years ago details how GIS (geographic information systems) have been integrated with elections allowing campaigners to get background information about the people in the homes they are about to knock on.
Scary?
Scary?
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
The Awful Truth
If some of feel you are wasting your time in my classroom, you may have company. Here's the link, here's the full article:
George Leef: Higher education has been oversold
No one benefits from the overload
09:24 AM CDT on Sunday, October 28, 2007
In one of his New York Times columns earlier this year, David Brooks lamented that "despite all the incentives, 30 percent of kids drop out of high school, and the college graduation rate has been flat for a generation." Mr. Brooks, like many spokesmen for the higher-education establishment, worries that the United States is falling behind in the international race for brainpower.
That is why we keep hearing politicians talk about the need to stimulate a higher rate of college attendance and completion. We're in a global "knowledge economy," and whereas America used to be tops in the percentage of workers with college degrees, we have now fallen behind a number of other nations. At a big education conference I attended back in February, former North Carolina governor Jim Hunt called this situation "scary."
Sorry, scaremongers, but there is nothing to worry about. If anything, America now puts too many students into college, and we certainly don't need any new subsidies to get more there.
Why?
First, it isn't true that the economy is undergoing some dramatic shift to "knowledge work" that can only be performed by people who have college educations. When we hear that more and more jobs "require" a college degree, that isn't because most of them are so technically demanding that an intelligent high school graduate couldn't learn to do the work. Rather, it means more employers are using educational credentials as a screening mechanism. As James Engell and Anthony Dangerfield write in their book Saving Higher Education in the Age of Money, "The United States has become the most rigidly credentialized society in the world. A B.A. is required for jobs that by no stretch of imagination need two years of full-time training, let alone four."
Second, the needless pressure to get educational credentials draws a large number of academically weak and intellectually disengaged students into college. All they want is the piece of paper that gets them past the screening. Most schools have quietly lowered their academic standards so that such students will stay happy and remain enrolled.
Third, due to the overselling of higher education, we find substantial numbers of college graduates taking "high school" jobs like retail sales. It's not that there is anything wrong with well-educated clerks or truck drivers, but to a great extent college is no longer about providing a solid, rounded education. The courses that once were the pillars of the curriculum, such as history, literature, philosophy and fine arts, have been watered down and are usually optional. Sadly, college education is now generally sold as a stepping stone to good employment rather than as an intellectually broadening experience. Sometimes it manages to do both, but often it does neither.
Fourth, it's a mistake to assume that the traditional college setting is the best or only way for people to learn the things they need to know in order to become successful workers. On-the-job training, self-directed studies and courses taken with a particular end in mind (in such fields as accounting) usually lead to much more educational gain than do courses taken just because they fill degree requirements.
"But wait," I hear readers saying, "isn't it true that people with college degrees earn far more than people with only high school diplomas?" That is true, on average – an average composed to a large degree of very bright and ambitious people who would be successful with or without a college degree, and also of people who earned their degrees decades ago when the curriculum and academic standards were more rigorous.
It simply doesn't follow that every person we might lure into college today is going to enjoy a great boost in lifetime earnings just because he manages to stick it out through enough courses to graduate.
A perennial trope among politicians is that more education will make everyone better off. Having a more efficient educational system – one that taught the three R's well in eight years rather than poorly in 16 – would indeed be a benefit. Simply putting a higher percentage of our young people into college, however, makes just as much sense as spreading more fertilizer on a field that's already been overfertilized.
George Leef is the director of the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy and a blogger at National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com), where a version of this piece originally appeared.
George Leef: Higher education has been oversold
No one benefits from the overload
09:24 AM CDT on Sunday, October 28, 2007
In one of his New York Times columns earlier this year, David Brooks lamented that "despite all the incentives, 30 percent of kids drop out of high school, and the college graduation rate has been flat for a generation." Mr. Brooks, like many spokesmen for the higher-education establishment, worries that the United States is falling behind in the international race for brainpower.
That is why we keep hearing politicians talk about the need to stimulate a higher rate of college attendance and completion. We're in a global "knowledge economy," and whereas America used to be tops in the percentage of workers with college degrees, we have now fallen behind a number of other nations. At a big education conference I attended back in February, former North Carolina governor Jim Hunt called this situation "scary."
Sorry, scaremongers, but there is nothing to worry about. If anything, America now puts too many students into college, and we certainly don't need any new subsidies to get more there.
Why?
First, it isn't true that the economy is undergoing some dramatic shift to "knowledge work" that can only be performed by people who have college educations. When we hear that more and more jobs "require" a college degree, that isn't because most of them are so technically demanding that an intelligent high school graduate couldn't learn to do the work. Rather, it means more employers are using educational credentials as a screening mechanism. As James Engell and Anthony Dangerfield write in their book Saving Higher Education in the Age of Money, "The United States has become the most rigidly credentialized society in the world. A B.A. is required for jobs that by no stretch of imagination need two years of full-time training, let alone four."
Second, the needless pressure to get educational credentials draws a large number of academically weak and intellectually disengaged students into college. All they want is the piece of paper that gets them past the screening. Most schools have quietly lowered their academic standards so that such students will stay happy and remain enrolled.
Third, due to the overselling of higher education, we find substantial numbers of college graduates taking "high school" jobs like retail sales. It's not that there is anything wrong with well-educated clerks or truck drivers, but to a great extent college is no longer about providing a solid, rounded education. The courses that once were the pillars of the curriculum, such as history, literature, philosophy and fine arts, have been watered down and are usually optional. Sadly, college education is now generally sold as a stepping stone to good employment rather than as an intellectually broadening experience. Sometimes it manages to do both, but often it does neither.
Fourth, it's a mistake to assume that the traditional college setting is the best or only way for people to learn the things they need to know in order to become successful workers. On-the-job training, self-directed studies and courses taken with a particular end in mind (in such fields as accounting) usually lead to much more educational gain than do courses taken just because they fill degree requirements.
"But wait," I hear readers saying, "isn't it true that people with college degrees earn far more than people with only high school diplomas?" That is true, on average – an average composed to a large degree of very bright and ambitious people who would be successful with or without a college degree, and also of people who earned their degrees decades ago when the curriculum and academic standards were more rigorous.
It simply doesn't follow that every person we might lure into college today is going to enjoy a great boost in lifetime earnings just because he manages to stick it out through enough courses to graduate.
A perennial trope among politicians is that more education will make everyone better off. Having a more efficient educational system – one that taught the three R's well in eight years rather than poorly in 16 – would indeed be a benefit. Simply putting a higher percentage of our young people into college, however, makes just as much sense as spreading more fertilizer on a field that's already been overfertilized.
George Leef is the director of the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy and a blogger at National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com), where a version of this piece originally appeared.
The World's Smallest Political Quiz
Here's an idea.
1-Write down your ideological position. Do you consider yourself to be liberal, conservative, moderate or what?
2-Take this quiz.
3-See whether it tells you that your self-identified position matches your opinions on various issues.
We're you correct? If not why not?
The quiz asks for you opinions on economic and social issues and determines whether you tilt to the left or right, or libertarian or statist--or centrist.
1-Write down your ideological position. Do you consider yourself to be liberal, conservative, moderate or what?
2-Take this quiz.
3-See whether it tells you that your self-identified position matches your opinions on various issues.
We're you correct? If not why not?
The quiz asks for you opinions on economic and social issues and determines whether you tilt to the left or right, or libertarian or statist--or centrist.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
I Love the Electoral College
Or at least I would if it worked the way it was supposed to.
More on that later, but I find it interesting that the nature of the electoral college is being cited by some of you as a reason why you don't care about politics and don't see the point in voting. Nothing unique there. Arguments against the electoral college are regular staples of election commentary. New arguments are tough to find, though certainly the election of 2000 was a wake up call for those who thought it unlikely that the popular vote winner would ever lose the electoral vote again.
Over time I've become a big fan of separated powers, which includes fully distinct elections, and I think it would be beneficial to revert to the system originally envisioned by the country's founders, including a return to state legislative selection for the Senate.
I went over this in class briefly, and will spend more time Monday on it, but the genius of our institutional arrangements begins with the complete autonomy of each, including a completely distinct selection process for each institution. Each ultimately can be traced back to a decision by the general population, which makes it democratic, but the course of each varies, which makes tyranny of the majority difficult to establish. I may be wrong, give me an argument if so, but the introduction of a barrier between popular opinion and the public policy does not make a process undemocratic. It simply alters the nature of the democratic process.
I'd have no problem with a system where candidates run for the electoral college, are elected by us based on the type of president they might seek, and are given full discretion regarding who they give the four year presidential term to. We have a direct popular vote for members of the House, who could control the president by oversight, legislation, and the threat of impeachment. So that's how you have direct democratic control over the president.
I'm not sure how a president (a chief executive remember) could truly, democratically represent the interests of a country of 3 million square miles and 300 million people. There are too many interests and passions in a country that large for one person to represent. That's what the 435 member House of Representatives is for, they are more capable of doing it well. This means that the president would be reduced to an actual executive rather than a leader/savior/knight on a white horse. An electoral college, whose only function is to make this selection then step down from power may well be able to select from various, perhaps unlikely, candidates who would be less likely to fall in love with the power of the office.
Is it possible that we have become skeptical of democracy in the United States because we have grown accustomed to looking to the wrong office for evidence of democracy? That's what the House is for.
Perhaps this is naive, but the current system guarantees that only the excessively ambitious apply. It seems to me that when people complain about something being undemocratic it doesn't necessarly mean that the will of the people is not being heard by elected officials, but that there personal preferences are not carrying the day. It's not undemocratic simply because you lose. In addition, democracy tends to be a rarified mythical concept that is half illusion, like "peace, love and happiness," and "the Texans win." It's one thing to think about what a hypothetical democracy might look like, it another to actually create one.
Just a few thoughts to keep the pot stirred.
By the way, why should the electoral college cause people to not vote for other offices?
Keep the comments coming.
More on that later, but I find it interesting that the nature of the electoral college is being cited by some of you as a reason why you don't care about politics and don't see the point in voting. Nothing unique there. Arguments against the electoral college are regular staples of election commentary. New arguments are tough to find, though certainly the election of 2000 was a wake up call for those who thought it unlikely that the popular vote winner would ever lose the electoral vote again.
Over time I've become a big fan of separated powers, which includes fully distinct elections, and I think it would be beneficial to revert to the system originally envisioned by the country's founders, including a return to state legislative selection for the Senate.
I went over this in class briefly, and will spend more time Monday on it, but the genius of our institutional arrangements begins with the complete autonomy of each, including a completely distinct selection process for each institution. Each ultimately can be traced back to a decision by the general population, which makes it democratic, but the course of each varies, which makes tyranny of the majority difficult to establish. I may be wrong, give me an argument if so, but the introduction of a barrier between popular opinion and the public policy does not make a process undemocratic. It simply alters the nature of the democratic process.
I'd have no problem with a system where candidates run for the electoral college, are elected by us based on the type of president they might seek, and are given full discretion regarding who they give the four year presidential term to. We have a direct popular vote for members of the House, who could control the president by oversight, legislation, and the threat of impeachment. So that's how you have direct democratic control over the president.
I'm not sure how a president (a chief executive remember) could truly, democratically represent the interests of a country of 3 million square miles and 300 million people. There are too many interests and passions in a country that large for one person to represent. That's what the 435 member House of Representatives is for, they are more capable of doing it well. This means that the president would be reduced to an actual executive rather than a leader/savior/knight on a white horse. An electoral college, whose only function is to make this selection then step down from power may well be able to select from various, perhaps unlikely, candidates who would be less likely to fall in love with the power of the office.
Is it possible that we have become skeptical of democracy in the United States because we have grown accustomed to looking to the wrong office for evidence of democracy? That's what the House is for.
Perhaps this is naive, but the current system guarantees that only the excessively ambitious apply. It seems to me that when people complain about something being undemocratic it doesn't necessarly mean that the will of the people is not being heard by elected officials, but that there personal preferences are not carrying the day. It's not undemocratic simply because you lose. In addition, democracy tends to be a rarified mythical concept that is half illusion, like "peace, love and happiness," and "the Texans win." It's one thing to think about what a hypothetical democracy might look like, it another to actually create one.
Just a few thoughts to keep the pot stirred.
By the way, why should the electoral college cause people to not vote for other offices?
Keep the comments coming.
Blog Action Day
In case you were wondering what all the excitement was about October 15th, it was blog action day 2007.
As best as I can tell, it was an effort to use the blogosphere to raise awareness of a common issue, in this case the environment, by having multiple blogs post on the topic. Over 20,000 did, though I don't know how one determines whether this was successful. There are over 100 million blogs apparently--many dead. 20,000 ain't much in comparison, and who knows whether policy makers will take this type of things seriously.
But it's another example of how people are trying to figure out the best way to use this new medium.
As best as I can tell, it was an effort to use the blogosphere to raise awareness of a common issue, in this case the environment, by having multiple blogs post on the topic. Over 20,000 did, though I don't know how one determines whether this was successful. There are over 100 million blogs apparently--many dead. 20,000 ain't much in comparison, and who knows whether policy makers will take this type of things seriously.
But it's another example of how people are trying to figure out the best way to use this new medium.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Political Efficacy
An interesting dialogue between Jordan and Jan has kicked up and hope they both continue, with help from some of you. Jordan states the following:
The other day in class Mr. Jefferies stated, "You all don't vote do you?" Considering the circumstances, I understand why we don't vote. Our knowledge of historical and current government issues comes primarily from the Internet. Which we all know can contain sources which are not reputable. There are no personal links to government for the everyday citizen. Government is complicated, and it is made complicated so only rich egocentric will take part. I'll tell you the truth, I don't vote because how much difference am I really going to make. For example, if the majority of society votes for a presidential candidate, and he wins the popular vote. Shouldn't he be president? The government thinks otherwise. They appoint the Electoral College to make decisions for us. Why do we need the Electoral College? Money is the navigator of government, and guess what, I don't have much and neither does a large percentage of Americans. The middle class, of Americans, pay the largest percentage of taxes, but aren't being represented. People investing in special interest groups have become the focal point of government interest. I'm tired of being just a percentage of the popular vote. Give us back our true representative democracy. Then I'll vote.
There's alot to this comment, but at root it sounds like a "consent" problem, and he speaks for many others--perhaps many of you. Clearly he feels detached (alienated) from the process, the actions of government feel remote, and he feels that people in power do not care about people like him. Government is not legitimate (which violates the intent of democracy) so why consent to the laws unless forced to? The wide open internet compounds the problem because in addition to not trusting elected leaders to represent your interests you can't trust the validity of the information you receive. Jordan, feel free to correct me if I'm getting something wrong.
Political scientists have developed two terms to describe this process: internal political efficacy (the belief that one can understand and influence policy) and external political efficacy (the belief that the government will respond to one's demands). Clearly Jordan lacks the latter, but the reason that you are required to take these classes is to increase the former which could increase your ability to ensure that government will respond to your demands, or gain a greater understanding of why it might not. Remember that the American political system is designed to make it difficult to pass laws and alter public policy.
Jan responds by stating: Jordan, to dispute your decision for voting, you need to vote, because each vote from a U.S. citizen makes a difference, whether it be you, me, or the john doe waiting in line behind you. But you are right, most young adults get their information from the internet, which sometimes, may not be a valid source, but nonetheless, it should not stop a person from voting at all, its simple, people vote for the candidate that fits the NEED that the voter wants.
Underlying Jan's comment, it seems to me, is the idea that the very act of voting begins a process that creates good citizens. But this doesn't satisfy Jordan: Jan, you say that every vote as a US citizen makes a difference. How? If you, John Doe, 60% of US Citizens and I all vote for the same candidate. That doesn't mean that candidate is going to win. And even if he does win, am I really being represented?
So let's unpack all this. Maybe we can begin by discussing the factual points Jordan makes.
- Does the internet make people more remote from politics? (Surprisingly this study suggests that it might)
- Is government made complicated in order to restrict participation by non-elites?
- Does the fact that a popular vote winner for the presidency might lose the electoral vote alienate people from politics?
- Do the middle class really feel alienated from the political system?
- What is a "true representative democracy" anyway and how would we know one if we had one? What is our proof that we don't have one now? Is it enough to say that "I" am not getting what I want or do we have to look at society as a whole?
There's more, but these are all hypothesis that can be tested. Reliable polls exist that make data available for interested parties. (see the American National Election Study).
Finally, is this attitude a cop out? Should one wait for "true representative democracy" to be established before one decides to vote or does the act of voting necessarily precede the establishment of a "true representative democracy?"
This is good stuff. I feel better about the classes now, slightly better anyway. I want to know what the rest of you think? Do you feel the same way as Jordan?
The other day in class Mr. Jefferies stated, "You all don't vote do you?" Considering the circumstances, I understand why we don't vote. Our knowledge of historical and current government issues comes primarily from the Internet. Which we all know can contain sources which are not reputable. There are no personal links to government for the everyday citizen. Government is complicated, and it is made complicated so only rich egocentric will take part. I'll tell you the truth, I don't vote because how much difference am I really going to make. For example, if the majority of society votes for a presidential candidate, and he wins the popular vote. Shouldn't he be president? The government thinks otherwise. They appoint the Electoral College to make decisions for us. Why do we need the Electoral College? Money is the navigator of government, and guess what, I don't have much and neither does a large percentage of Americans. The middle class, of Americans, pay the largest percentage of taxes, but aren't being represented. People investing in special interest groups have become the focal point of government interest. I'm tired of being just a percentage of the popular vote. Give us back our true representative democracy. Then I'll vote.
There's alot to this comment, but at root it sounds like a "consent" problem, and he speaks for many others--perhaps many of you. Clearly he feels detached (alienated) from the process, the actions of government feel remote, and he feels that people in power do not care about people like him. Government is not legitimate (which violates the intent of democracy) so why consent to the laws unless forced to? The wide open internet compounds the problem because in addition to not trusting elected leaders to represent your interests you can't trust the validity of the information you receive. Jordan, feel free to correct me if I'm getting something wrong.
Political scientists have developed two terms to describe this process: internal political efficacy (the belief that one can understand and influence policy) and external political efficacy (the belief that the government will respond to one's demands). Clearly Jordan lacks the latter, but the reason that you are required to take these classes is to increase the former which could increase your ability to ensure that government will respond to your demands, or gain a greater understanding of why it might not. Remember that the American political system is designed to make it difficult to pass laws and alter public policy.
Jan responds by stating: Jordan, to dispute your decision for voting, you need to vote, because each vote from a U.S. citizen makes a difference, whether it be you, me, or the john doe waiting in line behind you. But you are right, most young adults get their information from the internet, which sometimes, may not be a valid source, but nonetheless, it should not stop a person from voting at all, its simple, people vote for the candidate that fits the NEED that the voter wants.
Underlying Jan's comment, it seems to me, is the idea that the very act of voting begins a process that creates good citizens. But this doesn't satisfy Jordan: Jan, you say that every vote as a US citizen makes a difference. How? If you, John Doe, 60% of US Citizens and I all vote for the same candidate. That doesn't mean that candidate is going to win. And even if he does win, am I really being represented?
So let's unpack all this. Maybe we can begin by discussing the factual points Jordan makes.
- Does the internet make people more remote from politics? (Surprisingly this study suggests that it might)
- Is government made complicated in order to restrict participation by non-elites?
- Does the fact that a popular vote winner for the presidency might lose the electoral vote alienate people from politics?
- Do the middle class really feel alienated from the political system?
- What is a "true representative democracy" anyway and how would we know one if we had one? What is our proof that we don't have one now? Is it enough to say that "I" am not getting what I want or do we have to look at society as a whole?
There's more, but these are all hypothesis that can be tested. Reliable polls exist that make data available for interested parties. (see the American National Election Study).
Finally, is this attitude a cop out? Should one wait for "true representative democracy" to be established before one decides to vote or does the act of voting necessarily precede the establishment of a "true representative democracy?"
This is good stuff. I feel better about the classes now, slightly better anyway. I want to know what the rest of you think? Do you feel the same way as Jordan?
You Don't Really Care Do You?
Here are the class averages for the three re-tests we took today.
Remember that this is after we reviewed the test Monday--the one you took last Wednesday--and after I gave you the answers to the test.
2301-01: 65.8
2302-01: 78.8
2301-03: 82.2
Please tell me, do you care? Is this important to you? There's just so much I can do to help. After a while it comes down to your desire.
In the future I will not curve test results. I will review the tests after we take them and you will have a week to take it again in the learning lab on your own, and I'll average the two grades with a 60-40 split, and give you the averaged grade.
Remember that this is after we reviewed the test Monday--the one you took last Wednesday--and after I gave you the answers to the test.
2301-01: 65.8
2302-01: 78.8
2301-03: 82.2
Please tell me, do you care? Is this important to you? There's just so much I can do to help. After a while it comes down to your desire.
In the future I will not curve test results. I will review the tests after we take them and you will have a week to take it again in the learning lab on your own, and I'll average the two grades with a 60-40 split, and give you the averaged grade.
The Media and the Jena 6
The editor of the Jena Times, writing in the Christian Science Monitor, takes the national media to task for basing its stories about the recent controversy in Jena, LA on myths about what in fact happened.
Not being there, I am in no position to judge, but it is worth noting that many stories that prove to be, if not untrue--distorted, are biased in a manner that allows us to confirm prejudices or pre-held beliefs. We have a sense of how the world works and we use that to process information. Studies suggest that the act of processing information can alter it significantly. We remember things that did not happen, or ignore things that did, because it does not fit our picture of how the world works. The criminal justice process has has to take this into consideration when attempting to determine the validity of eyewitness testimony. Did a witness actually see what they believed they saw?
Louisiana has a pretty bad track record in civil rights matters, so it is easy to believe the worst when stories of this nature arise. Stereotypes seem hardwired into our brains.
We discuss this further in 2301 when we talk about public opinion.
Not being there, I am in no position to judge, but it is worth noting that many stories that prove to be, if not untrue--distorted, are biased in a manner that allows us to confirm prejudices or pre-held beliefs. We have a sense of how the world works and we use that to process information. Studies suggest that the act of processing information can alter it significantly. We remember things that did not happen, or ignore things that did, because it does not fit our picture of how the world works. The criminal justice process has has to take this into consideration when attempting to determine the validity of eyewitness testimony. Did a witness actually see what they believed they saw?
Louisiana has a pretty bad track record in civil rights matters, so it is easy to believe the worst when stories of this nature arise. Stereotypes seem hardwired into our brains.
We discuss this further in 2301 when we talk about public opinion.
The Amazing American Electorate
Althouse makes an interesting observation about recent poll results suggesting that a third of Republicans would support a third party candidate if the party's nominee is too liberal on social issues (meaning Giuliani--or Romney if you don't trust his recent conversion).
On the face of it, this could seriously hurt the party in the near term by tearing apart the coalition that has emerged in recent decades. Evangelicals haven't always voted Republican. Democratic support for pro-choice and gay rights position caused them to shift allegiance, where once the religious championed the Democrats position on civil rights. Things change.
This should be a terrific example of how shifts in positions cause shifts in party coalitions, except the Althouse looks at the polling data and finds out that a sizable percentage of those who would break from the party actually support Giuliani. So we have a contradiction. Some Republicans don't like the party flirting with candidates who take moderate to liberal positions on issues, unless its Giuliani.
They like the man, not his policies.
She thinks it's due to political ignorance, but I think it's due to the fact that Republican respondents to the poll are responding to an abstract consideration when they are asked about issues, and think of the totality of the man, including contradictions, when they think of Giuliani. When thinking of the man, the positions on social issues has to be weighed with his leadership qualities, which Republicans tend to like.
It tells me that candidate characteristics trump issues for Republican at this moment.
On the face of it, this could seriously hurt the party in the near term by tearing apart the coalition that has emerged in recent decades. Evangelicals haven't always voted Republican. Democratic support for pro-choice and gay rights position caused them to shift allegiance, where once the religious championed the Democrats position on civil rights. Things change.
This should be a terrific example of how shifts in positions cause shifts in party coalitions, except the Althouse looks at the polling data and finds out that a sizable percentage of those who would break from the party actually support Giuliani. So we have a contradiction. Some Republicans don't like the party flirting with candidates who take moderate to liberal positions on issues, unless its Giuliani.
They like the man, not his policies.
She thinks it's due to political ignorance, but I think it's due to the fact that Republican respondents to the poll are responding to an abstract consideration when they are asked about issues, and think of the totality of the man, including contradictions, when they think of Giuliani. When thinking of the man, the positions on social issues has to be weighed with his leadership qualities, which Republicans tend to like.
It tells me that candidate characteristics trump issues for Republican at this moment.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Review for 2301 Test 3
Electoral design in the US Constitution
-terms
-method
-constituency
dilemma: tyranny of the majority
indirect elections
-republic
direct elections
-referenda
-initiative
-recall
winner take all elections
proportional representation
consensus
super majority
majority
plurality
cumulative voting
single members districts
multiple members districts
house elections
-direct representation
-3/5ths compromise
-apportionment
-Baker v Carr
-delegates
-districting
-gerrymandering
-incumbency advantage
senate elections
-original design
-trustees
-17th Amendment
-undemocratic nature
presidential election
-electoral college
-evolution
-undemocratic nature
suffrage
-expansion
-15th Amendment
-jim crow
-white primary
-Smith v. Albright
voting turnout
-explaining gradual decrease
the irrationality of voting
the voting decision
-partisan loyalty
-issues
-candidate characteristics
the median voter theorem
campaigning
standing for office
running for office
funding elections
constitutional questions
Buckley v. Valeo
issue advocacy
public funding
soft money
hard money
political action committees
527 organizations
parties in the early republic
parties in Congress
-majority
-minority
parties and the separated powers
responsible parties
unified government
divided government
function of parties
recruitment of candidates
propose policies
the two party system
factions
coalitions
the six party eras in US
party history in Texas
realignment
dealignment
The Democratic Party
The Republican Party
-development
-evolution
-issues
-ideology
-supporters
King Caucus
Conventions
nominations
primary elections
-open primary
-closed primary
rise of candidates
modern campaigning
precinct conventions
county convention
district convention
state convention
Third Parties
Rise of Independents
Libertarians
-terms
-method
-constituency
dilemma: tyranny of the majority
indirect elections
-republic
direct elections
-referenda
-initiative
-recall
winner take all elections
proportional representation
consensus
super majority
majority
plurality
cumulative voting
single members districts
multiple members districts
house elections
-direct representation
-3/5ths compromise
-apportionment
-Baker v Carr
-delegates
-districting
-gerrymandering
-incumbency advantage
senate elections
-original design
-trustees
-17th Amendment
-undemocratic nature
presidential election
-electoral college
-evolution
-undemocratic nature
suffrage
-expansion
-15th Amendment
-jim crow
-white primary
-Smith v. Albright
voting turnout
-explaining gradual decrease
the irrationality of voting
the voting decision
-partisan loyalty
-issues
-candidate characteristics
the median voter theorem
campaigning
standing for office
running for office
funding elections
constitutional questions
Buckley v. Valeo
issue advocacy
public funding
soft money
hard money
political action committees
527 organizations
parties in the early republic
parties in Congress
-majority
-minority
parties and the separated powers
responsible parties
unified government
divided government
function of parties
recruitment of candidates
propose policies
the two party system
factions
coalitions
the six party eras in US
party history in Texas
realignment
dealignment
The Democratic Party
The Republican Party
-development
-evolution
-issues
-ideology
-supporters
King Caucus
Conventions
nominations
primary elections
-open primary
-closed primary
rise of candidates
modern campaigning
precinct conventions
county convention
district convention
state convention
Third Parties
Rise of Independents
Libertarians
Monday, October 22, 2007
Review for 2302 Test Three
Terms to know:
U.S. Constitution, Article 3
checks and balances
judicial review
evolution of the court
jurisdiction
-original
-appellate
-exclusive
-concurrent
cases and controversies
criminal law
misdemeanor
felony
grand jury
plaintiff
defendant
jury system
petit jury
venire
voir dire
impartiality
jury nullification
civil law
torts
contracts
public law
administrative law
constitutional law
common law
statutory law
precedent
stare decisis
trial court
municipal courts
court of record
justice of the peace
small claims court
county trial courts
state trial courts
probate courts
appellate courts
drug courts
punishment
-capital
TDCJ
TYC
recidivism
jails and prisons
parole
supreme court
court of appeals
court of criminal appeals
due process
writ of habeas corpus
the appointment of judges
the election of judges
senatorial courtesy
name of federal supreme court justices
interpretation of law
-strict
-loose
role of courts
-activism
-restraint
Marbury
Griswold
Dred Scott
Brown
Loving
Miranda
How and why cases get to the supreme court
standing
mootness
writ of certiorari
solicitor general
per curiam
amicus curiae
law clerks
rule of four
briefs
-petitioner
-respondent
oral argument
conference
Opinions
-majority
-concurring
-dissenting
lawyers
services for the poor
pro bono
contingency fees
U.S. Constitution, Article 3
checks and balances
judicial review
evolution of the court
jurisdiction
-original
-appellate
-exclusive
-concurrent
cases and controversies
criminal law
misdemeanor
felony
grand jury
plaintiff
defendant
jury system
petit jury
venire
voir dire
impartiality
jury nullification
civil law
torts
contracts
public law
administrative law
constitutional law
common law
statutory law
precedent
stare decisis
trial court
municipal courts
court of record
justice of the peace
small claims court
county trial courts
state trial courts
probate courts
appellate courts
drug courts
punishment
-capital
TDCJ
TYC
recidivism
jails and prisons
parole
supreme court
court of appeals
court of criminal appeals
due process
writ of habeas corpus
the appointment of judges
the election of judges
senatorial courtesy
name of federal supreme court justices
interpretation of law
-strict
-loose
role of courts
-activism
-restraint
Marbury
Griswold
Dred Scott
Brown
Loving
Miranda
How and why cases get to the supreme court
standing
mootness
writ of certiorari
solicitor general
per curiam
amicus curiae
law clerks
rule of four
briefs
-petitioner
-respondent
oral argument
conference
Opinions
-majority
-concurring
-dissenting
lawyers
services for the poor
pro bono
contingency fees
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Some Scenes From Seattle
Here are some unique scenes, with political content, from Seattle:
A dated sign, outside the first Starbucks by the way, stating that street performers needed a permit to perform.
And here is one of the performers. She was playing a difficult classical passages when I walked by, and had a cute dog. I gave her a couple of bucks and asked her permission before I took the shot.
And here is Joe Swaja's campaign sign for his run for Seattle's city council. Could make it down here. No flag, no red, white and blue, and what's with the image of the globe? Who's this guy representing anyway?
A dated sign, outside the first Starbucks by the way, stating that street performers needed a permit to perform.
And here is one of the performers. She was playing a difficult classical passages when I walked by, and had a cute dog. I gave her a couple of bucks and asked her permission before I took the shot.
And here is Joe Swaja's campaign sign for his run for Seattle's city council. Could make it down here. No flag, no red, white and blue, and what's with the image of the globe? Who's this guy representing anyway?
Topical Topics
Here a few stories on the news, some directly relate to upcoming lecture topics:
Last week's Time Magazine's cover story was on, what they call, the incredibly shrinking court. The Supreme Court has narrowed its focus to the degree where its decisions only have an impact on a very small percentage of the public. No more Browns, Mirandas and Griswolds for this group. On the bright side--according to Clarence Thomas--they all get along. We are about to look at the judiciary in 2302, so this is appropriate.
This week's Time tells us something others have said before: whoever wins the Libertarian vote will win the presidency. They tend to side with Democrats on civil liberties and Republicans on economic regulation. Whichever issue is more prominent next November will determine the winner. This will fit with our discussion of the nature of party coalitions in 2301.
The Miami Herald has another story on a topic that has been thoroughly covered before, but needs constant updating: the influence of campaign cash on presidential campaigns.
The need to raise money to run campaigns raises a constitutional issue: the expenditure of money to successfully run for public office has been equated with free speech, which is a civil liberty, but the unequal distribution of funding means that some sides of issues are more likely to be addressed publicly than others, which could violate basic principles of democratic fairness and undermine the legitimacy of the government.
More to come.
Last week's Time Magazine's cover story was on, what they call, the incredibly shrinking court. The Supreme Court has narrowed its focus to the degree where its decisions only have an impact on a very small percentage of the public. No more Browns, Mirandas and Griswolds for this group. On the bright side--according to Clarence Thomas--they all get along. We are about to look at the judiciary in 2302, so this is appropriate.
This week's Time tells us something others have said before: whoever wins the Libertarian vote will win the presidency. They tend to side with Democrats on civil liberties and Republicans on economic regulation. Whichever issue is more prominent next November will determine the winner. This will fit with our discussion of the nature of party coalitions in 2301.
The Miami Herald has another story on a topic that has been thoroughly covered before, but needs constant updating: the influence of campaign cash on presidential campaigns.
The need to raise money to run campaigns raises a constitutional issue: the expenditure of money to successfully run for public office has been equated with free speech, which is a civil liberty, but the unequal distribution of funding means that some sides of issues are more likely to be addressed publicly than others, which could violate basic principles of democratic fairness and undermine the legitimacy of the government.
More to come.
Attention
If you are in one of my Monday - Wednesday classes, you might want to take the trouble to come to class tomorrow and/or Wednesday. We will discuss the dismal results of the test and talk about what we are going to do about it.
I will try to have all the papers and TBA work graded by Wednesday.
I will try to have all the papers and TBA work graded by Wednesday.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Test Results
I've graded test two. Here are the averages for each section:
GOVT 2301-01: 47
GOVT 2301-03: 57
GOVT 2302-01: 57.8
GOVT 2302-03: 69.2
I'll have the TBA's graded later this weekend.
Have a nice weekend.
GOVT 2301-01: 47
GOVT 2301-03: 57
GOVT 2302-01: 57.8
GOVT 2302-03: 69.2
I'll have the TBA's graded later this weekend.
Have a nice weekend.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
It Begins
Perhaps the most ominous news of this week was when the first baby boomer applied for Social Security benefits. The press is calling the upcoming retirement of 80 million baby boomers the "silver tsunami."
Social Security has always been an intergenerational transfer of wealth that has only paid for itself as long as more people paid into the system than drew out of it. By 2017, that may no longer be the case--according to projections anyway. One culprit is medical science and the healthier lifestyles that allow retirees to live longer than they did when the program was established.
The retirement age has not been pushed back to compensate for this so people can draw from the program as many year as they paid into it.
It's worth noting that the applicant is retiring early.
Social Security has always been an intergenerational transfer of wealth that has only paid for itself as long as more people paid into the system than drew out of it. By 2017, that may no longer be the case--according to projections anyway. One culprit is medical science and the healthier lifestyles that allow retirees to live longer than they did when the program was established.
The retirement age has not been pushed back to compensate for this so people can draw from the program as many year as they paid into it.
It's worth noting that the applicant is retiring early.
SCHIP veto
As expected, President Bush vetoed the expansion of SCHIP.
The New York Times tells us:
The New York Times tells us:
In some ways, the outcome of today’s vote was not surprising; experts say it is extremely difficult for Congress to override a presidential veto. President Clinton exercised 37 regular vetoes during his eight years in office; two were overridden. Mr. Bush’s father exercised his veto pen 29 times, with one override. What would have been surprising, scholars say, would have been for Democrats to prevail.
And adds a note we've discussed before:
And in the end, the veto may not do Mr. Bush much good, especially if the bill he ultimately signs into law is not much different than the one he rejected. “It was an ambiguous victory,” said John J. Pitney, a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College in California, “because Democrats may have lost on the legislation, but they won themselves a campaign issue.”
Perhaps Democrats won.
Monday, October 15, 2007
In Seattle
That's where I will be til Thursday.
I'll still check my emails though.
Wednesday class tests will be given in the Learning Lab at regular class times.
I'll still check my emails though.
Wednesday class tests will be given in the Learning Lab at regular class times.
Election Day Workers Needed
Conditions apply, but if you are free November 6 give Kevin Murphy a call.
281-648-7711 ext. 14
It pays $8 an hour. If you have class that day, I'll let you off. In fact, I'll give anyone who does this 5 extra points on test 3, But you;ll have to give me a report on what you did that day.
281-648-7711 ext. 14
It pays $8 an hour. If you have class that day, I'll let you off. In fact, I'll give anyone who does this 5 extra points on test 3, But you;ll have to give me a report on what you did that day.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
On Anonymous' Question About the Review Topics for 2302 Test 2
Here is a comment sent from one of your fellow students in full:
hey,
i've looked in the book and online and i can't really find anything helpful on a few terms.
i know we went over them in class breifly but some you skipped over, i think to try and fit in everything. if you could help me with a few of these i would appreciate it.
administration
independent agencies
revenue agencies
internal security agencies
external sercurity agencies
what do we need to know aobut them i mean some i can figure out but is there something specific you want us to know?
I know I try to keep it casual, but you should not start emails to people with some level of authority (even as little as mine) with "hey." I also let a few misspellings on my own slip so I don't want to be a hypocrite, but let's make an effort OK? "I" is capitalized by the way.
As far as the terms the student cannot find, I can either say where they are--and be patronizing about it, or remind you that you are adult college students and ought to be able to follow simple instructions. I'll do the former.
All five terms can be readily found in Chapter 7 of the American Government textbook, the one that covers the bureaucracy.
administration: page 278, five lines down, four words to the right. Look for the word "administration."
independent agencies: Page 282, under the section "How is the Executive Branch Organized?" Look on the third line under the title and you will notice "(2) independent agencies." You should be able to take it from there.
revenue agencies: Page 285, near the bottom of the page you will see in blue ink (which makes this tricky I know) you will note the term "Revenue Agencies." Begin reading from that point.
internal security agencies: Page 286, after the section described above. You will note the term (again in blue ink) "Agencies for Internal Security." Read from there.
external sercurity agencies: Page 286, after the above section, you will notice also in blue ink "Agencies for External National Security." I know that the terminology is different, so I apologize of that throws a few of you off. Again pick up your reading from that spot.
The last part of the question is legitimate. What do you need to know about them? Please be able to define them and understand them in relationship to other aspects of government. You already know what my tests look like so imagine what type of multiple choice questions you might get about them.
Sorry if this is a bit low-brow for some of you, but please understand that this class is not pitched at a high level. All the information necessary for you to do well is easily available to you.
hey,
i've looked in the book and online and i can't really find anything helpful on a few terms.
i know we went over them in class breifly but some you skipped over, i think to try and fit in everything. if you could help me with a few of these i would appreciate it.
administration
independent agencies
revenue agencies
internal security agencies
external sercurity agencies
what do we need to know aobut them i mean some i can figure out but is there something specific you want us to know?
I know I try to keep it casual, but you should not start emails to people with some level of authority (even as little as mine) with "hey." I also let a few misspellings on my own slip so I don't want to be a hypocrite, but let's make an effort OK? "I" is capitalized by the way.
As far as the terms the student cannot find, I can either say where they are--and be patronizing about it, or remind you that you are adult college students and ought to be able to follow simple instructions. I'll do the former.
All five terms can be readily found in Chapter 7 of the American Government textbook, the one that covers the bureaucracy.
administration: page 278, five lines down, four words to the right. Look for the word "administration."
independent agencies: Page 282, under the section "How is the Executive Branch Organized?" Look on the third line under the title and you will notice "(2) independent agencies." You should be able to take it from there.
revenue agencies: Page 285, near the bottom of the page you will see in blue ink (which makes this tricky I know) you will note the term "Revenue Agencies." Begin reading from that point.
internal security agencies: Page 286, after the section described above. You will note the term (again in blue ink) "Agencies for Internal Security." Read from there.
external sercurity agencies: Page 286, after the above section, you will notice also in blue ink "Agencies for External National Security." I know that the terminology is different, so I apologize of that throws a few of you off. Again pick up your reading from that spot.
The last part of the question is legitimate. What do you need to know about them? Please be able to define them and understand them in relationship to other aspects of government. You already know what my tests look like so imagine what type of multiple choice questions you might get about them.
Sorry if this is a bit low-brow for some of you, but please understand that this class is not pitched at a high level. All the information necessary for you to do well is easily available to you.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
A New Constitutional Convention?
Every few years a provocative book is written stating why we need a new Constitution.
Here is Larry Sabato's contribution to the literature: A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country:
He outlines his argument in this LA Times article. He suggests that war powers have tilted too far in favor of the executive, the Senate is too unrepresentative of the population to still be legitimate, the presidential selection process is biased in favor of unrepresentative states, and that its time to allow foreign born citizens the right to run for president. He also points out that the founders would probably be surprised that the document has survived more or less intact this long (though the reinterpretation has been significant).
A web site has launched which outlines his suggestion.
Sabato is a serious, thoughtful person, but I don't know how serious his suggestion is. Considering the controversies that surround relatively light weight issues like SCHIP (my apologies to those who depend on the program) I can't imagine how difficult it would be to manage a convention. There is always that chance that unforeseen, small mistakes could have huge consequences. But it's a useful exercise to consider what we would revise if we could.
Here is Larry Sabato's contribution to the literature: A More Perfect Constitution: 23 Proposals to Revitalize Our Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country:
He outlines his argument in this LA Times article. He suggests that war powers have tilted too far in favor of the executive, the Senate is too unrepresentative of the population to still be legitimate, the presidential selection process is biased in favor of unrepresentative states, and that its time to allow foreign born citizens the right to run for president. He also points out that the founders would probably be surprised that the document has survived more or less intact this long (though the reinterpretation has been significant).
A web site has launched which outlines his suggestion.
Sabato is a serious, thoughtful person, but I don't know how serious his suggestion is. Considering the controversies that surround relatively light weight issues like SCHIP (my apologies to those who depend on the program) I can't imagine how difficult it would be to manage a convention. There is always that chance that unforeseen, small mistakes could have huge consequences. But it's a useful exercise to consider what we would revise if we could.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
A Couple of Class Questions
A couple of questions have been raised in recent classes that I didn't have proper answers for and would like to begin to address these in this format.
The first has to do with police violations of civil liberties on the street that though they do not lead to prosecutions (because they are proven to violate rights--for example, probable cause was not established) still impose costs on the accused because they take time and money to address. Sure you are not sent to prison, but you may be destitute as a result of the process. Do you have recourse? My hunch is that you do not--but that's just a hunch. The problem is that the police may still act with discretion and impose punishments on people (by arresting, questioning, accusing and prosecuting them) that can be just as significant as a prison term. So what use is the Bill of Rights if it does not in fact minimize police actions on the ground?
I can't answer that at the moment. This becomes a political issue. To what degree can the general population control police behavior?
The second question concerned John Adams and his rationale for defending the soldiers after the Boston Massacre. We usually argue that it had to do with his animosity towards the passionate mob and his support for the merchants and their access to British markets. But Adams would later join the "radicals" and support revolution, so his thought process had to be more complex. He was a prodigious writer, so certainly a paper trail of his thought process exists somewhere. I can't speak to its nuances.
I'll see what I can find out.
The first has to do with police violations of civil liberties on the street that though they do not lead to prosecutions (because they are proven to violate rights--for example, probable cause was not established) still impose costs on the accused because they take time and money to address. Sure you are not sent to prison, but you may be destitute as a result of the process. Do you have recourse? My hunch is that you do not--but that's just a hunch. The problem is that the police may still act with discretion and impose punishments on people (by arresting, questioning, accusing and prosecuting them) that can be just as significant as a prison term. So what use is the Bill of Rights if it does not in fact minimize police actions on the ground?
I can't answer that at the moment. This becomes a political issue. To what degree can the general population control police behavior?
The second question concerned John Adams and his rationale for defending the soldiers after the Boston Massacre. We usually argue that it had to do with his animosity towards the passionate mob and his support for the merchants and their access to British markets. But Adams would later join the "radicals" and support revolution, so his thought process had to be more complex. He was a prodigious writer, so certainly a paper trail of his thought process exists somewhere. I can't speak to its nuances.
I'll see what I can find out.
Texas Pork
We're number one! (OK, number three, but we can dream.) Only two states get more in federal spending than Texas. Nothing new in that--think about the Johnson Space Center.
Since we like to consider ourselves to be self sufficient conservatives, are we hypocrites? Or are we simply smart to take advantages of the opportunities we are given?
Note the following about our own Ron Paul: "Rep. Ron Paul has long crusaded against a big central government. But the maverick GOP lawmaker and presidential contender also has represented a congressional district that is consistently among the top in Texas in its reliance on dollars from Washington. In the first nine months of the federal government's 2006 fiscal year alone, it received more than $4 billion in federal aid."
He wants to get elected of course. Could he be if he refuses the money?
And how does ACC gets some of this filthy lucre?
Since we like to consider ourselves to be self sufficient conservatives, are we hypocrites? Or are we simply smart to take advantages of the opportunities we are given?
Note the following about our own Ron Paul: "Rep. Ron Paul has long crusaded against a big central government. But the maverick GOP lawmaker and presidential contender also has represented a congressional district that is consistently among the top in Texas in its reliance on dollars from Washington. In the first nine months of the federal government's 2006 fiscal year alone, it received more than $4 billion in federal aid."
He wants to get elected of course. Could he be if he refuses the money?
And how does ACC gets some of this filthy lucre?
Monday, October 8, 2007
Speaking of Federalism
Two current controversies in Iraq provide current examples of federalism.
The first is its structure and whether a federal, rather than unitary structure, would be more appropriate for Iraq. Joe Biden, Delaware Senator and rumored presidential candidate suggests that Iraq should be divided into three separate areas, one controlled by the Kurds, one by Sunni Muslims, the other by Shiites. It's not a new idea. Supporters argue that this form is better able to keep the peace, and that there is no historical reason why the three groups should have been forced into one country to begin with.
The second concerns the recent controversy with Blackwater, the private firm hired by the State Department to protect themselves and other diplomats. Considering that our military budget is just shy of $1 trillion a year, one wonders why our military can't do it. This is a current example of privatization. Many other firms also have been subcontracted to perform services originally served by the military. It's good business.
The first is its structure and whether a federal, rather than unitary structure, would be more appropriate for Iraq. Joe Biden, Delaware Senator and rumored presidential candidate suggests that Iraq should be divided into three separate areas, one controlled by the Kurds, one by Sunni Muslims, the other by Shiites. It's not a new idea. Supporters argue that this form is better able to keep the peace, and that there is no historical reason why the three groups should have been forced into one country to begin with.
The second concerns the recent controversy with Blackwater, the private firm hired by the State Department to protect themselves and other diplomats. Considering that our military budget is just shy of $1 trillion a year, one wonders why our military can't do it. This is a current example of privatization. Many other firms also have been subcontracted to perform services originally served by the military. It's good business.
What is Federalism Anyway?
I try to be sympathetic about how difficult some concepts in government can be, but this ain't physics. My MW 2301 11am class was entirely too confused today about what the term "federalism" referred to. A simple definition shouldn't be that difficult to offer off the top of your head, but that might require reading the textbook.
Everyone has their own style in the classroom, but I tend to make adjustments based on what kind of feedback I get from students. If comments and questions are at a high level, I respond in kind. Stunned slack jawed silence when I ask a simple question tells me I need to toss slow underhand pitches a hope someone takes a swing at it.
Its no fun though. Neither is seeing this when I stare out at the class:
You can do better, I promise.
Aside from you textbook (and lectures I promise) you can read up more on federalism in the following sites:
- The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Wikipedia.
- The National Constitution Center.
- ThisNation.com.
- infoplease.com.
- an essay from the Cato Institute.
Maybe one of these will do trick for you.
Everyone has their own style in the classroom, but I tend to make adjustments based on what kind of feedback I get from students. If comments and questions are at a high level, I respond in kind. Stunned slack jawed silence when I ask a simple question tells me I need to toss slow underhand pitches a hope someone takes a swing at it.
Its no fun though. Neither is seeing this when I stare out at the class:
You can do better, I promise.
Aside from you textbook (and lectures I promise) you can read up more on federalism in the following sites:
- The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Wikipedia.
- The National Constitution Center.
- ThisNation.com.
- infoplease.com.
- an essay from the Cato Institute.
Maybe one of these will do trick for you.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Review for 2302 Test Two
These terms should help you prepare for test 2. If we haven't covered them in class, they can be found in the textbooks (of course). I'll run through these next Wednesday.
Magna Carta
Divine Right of Kings
George Washington
The electoral college
Constitutional design
King caucus
Expressed powers
Delegated powers
Inherent powers
singular executive
Commander in chief
war powers resolution
Executive agreement
Executive privilege
signing statements
Veto
Pocket veto
line item veto
Legislative initiative
Executive orders
vesting clause
legislative supremacy
the New Deal
NLRB v. Jones
singular executive
plural executive
unitary executive
the legislative epoch
the modern presidency
cabinet
National Security Council
White House Staff
Executive Office of the President
Office of Management and Budget
Vice President
mandate
party leader
Going Public
divided government
permanent campaign
presidential popularity
regulatory review
the bureaucracy
implementation
division of labor
administration
Rule making
administrative adjudication
cabinet departments
independent agencies
government corporations
independent regulatory commissions
Clientele agencies
revenue agencies
internal security agencies
external security agencies
regulatory agencies
administrative legislation
fiscal agencies
monetary agencies
welfare agencies
bureaucratic drift
appointment process
coalitional drift
oversight
civil service
deregulation
devolution
privatization
Magna Carta
Divine Right of Kings
George Washington
The electoral college
Constitutional design
King caucus
Expressed powers
Delegated powers
Inherent powers
singular executive
Commander in chief
war powers resolution
Executive agreement
Executive privilege
signing statements
Veto
Pocket veto
line item veto
Legislative initiative
Executive orders
vesting clause
legislative supremacy
the New Deal
NLRB v. Jones
singular executive
plural executive
unitary executive
the legislative epoch
the modern presidency
cabinet
National Security Council
White House Staff
Executive Office of the President
Office of Management and Budget
Vice President
mandate
party leader
Going Public
divided government
permanent campaign
presidential popularity
regulatory review
the bureaucracy
implementation
division of labor
administration
Rule making
administrative adjudication
cabinet departments
independent agencies
government corporations
independent regulatory commissions
Clientele agencies
revenue agencies
internal security agencies
external security agencies
regulatory agencies
administrative legislation
fiscal agencies
monetary agencies
welfare agencies
bureaucratic drift
appointment process
coalitional drift
oversight
civil service
deregulation
devolution
privatization
Review for 2301 Test Two
Be prepared to answer questions about the following terms for test two. Note that we wont talk about all of these in class, but I'll try to go over all of them at some point. They are, as you know, clearly discussed in your textbooks. Think of these in the broadest possible sense.
federalism
dual sovereignty
expressed powers
article 1, section 8 of the Constitution
implied powers
reserved powers
10th Amendment
police powers
Full Faith and Credit
privileges and immunities
local governments
Home rule cities
General Law cities
Dual Federalism
Cooperative federalism
grants in aid
regulated federalism
unfunded mandates
new federalism
Block grants
devolution
state sovereign immunity
separated powers
purpose of s of p
Unified government
Divided government
The checks and balances
Legislative supremacy
judicial review
Executive privilege
Forms of municipal government
strong mayor council
council manager
at-large elections
single member districts
counties
county judge
county sheriff
commissioners court
special districts
councils of government
The Bill of Rights
controversies
dual citizenship
Civil Liberties
substantive protections
Procedural protections
Civil rights
14th Amendment
Equal protection clause
Plessy and Brown
Defining discrimination
Affirmative Action
nationalizing the Bill of Rights
De-nationalization
The Warren Court
The Rehnquist Court
federalism
dual sovereignty
expressed powers
article 1, section 8 of the Constitution
implied powers
reserved powers
10th Amendment
police powers
Full Faith and Credit
privileges and immunities
local governments
Home rule cities
General Law cities
Dual Federalism
Cooperative federalism
grants in aid
regulated federalism
unfunded mandates
new federalism
Block grants
devolution
state sovereign immunity
separated powers
purpose of s of p
Unified government
Divided government
The checks and balances
Legislative supremacy
judicial review
Executive privilege
Forms of municipal government
strong mayor council
council manager
at-large elections
single member districts
counties
county judge
county sheriff
commissioners court
special districts
councils of government
The Bill of Rights
controversies
dual citizenship
Civil Liberties
substantive protections
Procedural protections
Civil rights
14th Amendment
Equal protection clause
Plessy and Brown
Defining discrimination
Affirmative Action
nationalizing the Bill of Rights
De-nationalization
The Warren Court
The Rehnquist Court
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Sputnik's 50th Anniversary
1957 was quite the year. The Soviet Union's successful launch of Sputnik was one of the more significant agenda setting event in American history, aside from the space program, the development of the Internet and a generation of math and science conscious students were the immediate consequence.
Considering what lied ahead for the Soviet Union, maybe its not such a bad thing to be second.
Considering what lied ahead for the Soviet Union, maybe its not such a bad thing to be second.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Bush vetos SCHIP
No one expects the veto to be overridden. The House of Representatives passed it first, but only 265 members voted for it, which is short of the 290 needed to overturn the veto. Unless lightning strikes, it will fail there and not proceed to the Senate where an override would likely have been successful since more then 2/3rds of the Senators voted for the bill.
Now the politics begins, which some disdain, but I think it more than appropriate for an item like this. The vote was along party lines. 220 Democrats voted for it, 8 against and 151 Republicans voted against with 45 for. Voters have a pretty clear signal about how to vote if they favor or oppose the bill, which is what a two party system is supposed to do.
Polls suggest that most Americans support the proposed expansion--but this does not necessarily mean that most voters do (or that voters favor it by a similar percentage).
Republican leaders suggest that those poll results may not be accurate: "House Republicans quietly distributed a survey by David Winston, who is close to [House minority Leader John] Boehner, that came to a different conclusion. It said critics of the legislation can win the public debate if they say they favor "covering uninsured children without expanding government coverage to adults, illegal immigrants and those who already have insurance...." A copy of the poll was obtained by The Associated Press."
The key to this poll question is that it connect the expansion with expanded government, illegal immigrants, and those who can afford it on their own. Pollsters call this a framing effect--which we cover in 2301 when we discuss the measurement of public opinion. This puts a negative spin on the issue and suggests how Republicans will attempt to negate the almost certain backlash that will hit them next year.
Now the politics begins, which some disdain, but I think it more than appropriate for an item like this. The vote was along party lines. 220 Democrats voted for it, 8 against and 151 Republicans voted against with 45 for. Voters have a pretty clear signal about how to vote if they favor or oppose the bill, which is what a two party system is supposed to do.
Polls suggest that most Americans support the proposed expansion--but this does not necessarily mean that most voters do (or that voters favor it by a similar percentage).
Republican leaders suggest that those poll results may not be accurate: "House Republicans quietly distributed a survey by David Winston, who is close to [House minority Leader John] Boehner, that came to a different conclusion. It said critics of the legislation can win the public debate if they say they favor "covering uninsured children without expanding government coverage to adults, illegal immigrants and those who already have insurance...." A copy of the poll was obtained by The Associated Press."
The key to this poll question is that it connect the expansion with expanded government, illegal immigrants, and those who can afford it on their own. Pollsters call this a framing effect--which we cover in 2301 when we discuss the measurement of public opinion. This puts a negative spin on the issue and suggests how Republicans will attempt to negate the almost certain backlash that will hit them next year.
Another Czar is Born
Congressional Democrats want President Bush to name a "mortgage czar" to spearhead a resolution of the crisis in the financial sector which is leading to a wave of mortgage foreclosures.
This adds to a list of czars I started in May (the food safety czar), plus the war czar in April.
This adds to a list of czars I started in May (the food safety czar), plus the war czar in April.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Section Two Written Assignments
Most of you did well on the previous set of written assignments. You may have noticed that I don't grade especially hard, if you give me the required length (at least) and make me think that you have read the work. If you didn't, you didn't do so well.
If I haven't mentioned this already, these written assignments are the "critical thinking" part of the classwork, or the closest I come to it anyway. I want to see some evidence that you are able to pick out and evaluate arguments, and why not use arguments central to the founding of the American republic? Here is a random website that discusses arguments, maybe it will help you.
People who got A's gave me lengthy work that clearly articulated the argument in the respective fed and antifed papers. Since I gave you a head start last time, here are a few notes on each to get you going.
If I haven't mentioned this already, these written assignments are the "critical thinking" part of the classwork, or the closest I come to it anyway. I want to see some evidence that you are able to pick out and evaluate arguments, and why not use arguments central to the founding of the American republic? Here is a random website that discusses arguments, maybe it will help you.
People who got A's gave me lengthy work that clearly articulated the argument in the respective fed and antifed papers. Since I gave you a head start last time, here are a few notes on each to get you going.
8: Publius predicts an eventual war between the states if the constitution is not ratified. The states would grow jealous of each other and begin to form arguments. War increase the power of the executive branch, so we will eventually see despotic governments evolve in the states. The Federal Republican does not directly address Publius’ comments, but makes general comments about the consequences of giving power to the national government. Individual liberty will suffer.
9: Publius compares the likely state of the nation under the articles of confederation to the relationships between the city a states in Italy where government vacillated between tyranny and anarchy, neither conducive to civil liberty. The very concept of civil liberty becomes denigrated in that situation. The refinement of the science of government, the concepts of balanced and separated powers minimize the possibility of tyranny under the constitution. Montezuma adopts a mocking tone aimed at demonstrating that the checks and balances which publius states will negate the ability of the national government to become tyrannical is actually intended to limit the ability of the lower classes to participate in government.
9: Publius compares the likely state of the nation under the articles of confederation to the relationships between the city a states in Italy where government vacillated between tyranny and anarchy, neither conducive to civil liberty. The very concept of civil liberty becomes denigrated in that situation. The refinement of the science of government, the concepts of balanced and separated powers minimize the possibility of tyranny under the constitution. Montezuma adopts a mocking tone aimed at demonstrating that the checks and balances which publius states will negate the ability of the national government to become tyrannical is actually intended to limit the ability of the lower classes to participate in government.
10: In perhaps the most important of the Federalist Papers, Publius states that the republicans system of government will minimize the tendency of majority factions to form and tyrannize unpopular minorities. A farmer clarifies Publius’ analysis of the divisions in society and seems to reject the idea that people are naturally wicked, weak maybe, but not wicked.
72: Publius details the reasons why it is unwise to put a limit on the amount of time someone can be president. Republicus is not convinced that the mode of selection will not led someone to be established in office who will then abuse power once there and attempt to turn the office into a hereditary monarchy.
73: Publius and William Penn separately discuss the power in the executive, specifically its relationship with the legislative branch. Publius wants to ensure that the legislative power will not intrude on the executive because that would lead to the development of a tyranny. Penn compares the design of the separated powers across the different states.
The links and due dates are on the syllabi. Feel free to bring up any of this in class.
The links and due dates are on the syllabi. Feel free to bring up any of this in class.
Monday, October 1, 2007
On Laws and Rules
The Associated Press reports that several states are taking the Bush administration to court to block its plans to prevent the states from expanding SCHIP moderately low income families.
The administration seems to have a two pronged attack on the State Children's Health Insurance Plan. The first is his promised veto of the $35 billion expansion of the federal program, the second is this administrative effort.
He seems determined.
A story in today's Washington Post about public opinion on the issue makes one wonder why:
"...a sizable majority [of the people surveyed] support an expansion of a children's health insurance bill he has promised to veto, putting Bush and many congressional Republicans on the wrong side of public opinion on upcoming foreign and domestic policy battles."
Are Republicans setting themselves up for a perfect storm in 2008?
The administration seems to have a two pronged attack on the State Children's Health Insurance Plan. The first is his promised veto of the $35 billion expansion of the federal program, the second is this administrative effort.
He seems determined.
A story in today's Washington Post about public opinion on the issue makes one wonder why:
"...a sizable majority [of the people surveyed] support an expansion of a children's health insurance bill he has promised to veto, putting Bush and many congressional Republicans on the wrong side of public opinion on upcoming foreign and domestic policy battles."
Are Republicans setting themselves up for a perfect storm in 2008?
Welcome Back!
It's the first Monday in October which means that the United States Supreme Court is back
in session. We will be covering them in both 2301 and 2302. In the former we will determine how its decision may impact civil liberties, civil rights and constitutional questions in general. In the latter we will look at it from an institutional perspective--how past elections are now having an impact on the direction of its decisions.
Here are few sources of commentary about what lies ahead:
- Scotusblog.
- The Washington Post.
- The Los Angeles Times.
- The Boston Globe.
in session. We will be covering them in both 2301 and 2302. In the former we will determine how its decision may impact civil liberties, civil rights and constitutional questions in general. In the latter we will look at it from an institutional perspective--how past elections are now having an impact on the direction of its decisions.
Here are few sources of commentary about what lies ahead:
- Scotusblog.
- The Washington Post.
- The Los Angeles Times.
- The Boston Globe.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
The Clampdown Succeeds
Myanmar's military rulers stormed Buddhist monasteries, kicked everyone off the streets--those they didn't kill, prevented groups of more than five people from meeting, and shut down access to the internet. It seems to have worked.
Though reports suggest that the military rulers are being criticized across the globe, the criticism from the country's key trading partners--India, China and Russia--are not backing words with action. The country is rich in natural resources and none want to lose access to them.
Though reports suggest that the military rulers are being criticized across the globe, the criticism from the country's key trading partners--India, China and Russia--are not backing words with action. The country is rich in natural resources and none want to lose access to them.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Fallacies
When I began teaching in 1994 I'd begin each semester by discussing argumentation, what makes an argument valid, and what made it invalid. Special attention was paid to arguments that were fallacies. Since the bulk of political statements tend to contain various fallacies, it is probably wise to resume discussing these in class. My current students might also find them useful when trying to critically evaluate the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.
I'll bring these up when appropriate, but here are some websites which discuss these further.
- The Nizkor Project.
- The Fallacy Files.
- Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate.
- Fallacies - From UNC.
I'll bring these up when appropriate, but here are some websites which discuss these further.
- The Nizkor Project.
- The Fallacy Files.
- Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate.
- Fallacies - From UNC.
Friday, September 28, 2007
SCHIP and Socialism
Conservatives across the board have begun criticizing the expansion of SCHIP as being socialism in disguise. By expanding entitlements to middle class families, a point disputed by some of the program's supporters, more people are going to be made dependent upon government and less able to provide for themselves. Here are a couple sources for this idea:
- The Heritage Foundation
- Human Events
I'm rarely moved by the merits of accusations of socialism, but I think the effort is focused more on rallying public opinion. Conservatives admit that it is difficult to effectively counter arguments for expanding health care for children without seeming like a heartless ogre. Unless of course you can persuade people that doing so places those kids under the thumb of big brother.
I'll file this under "framing," the attempt to influence how people process information about a specific issue.
The show down over SCHIP's re authorization will be interesting. It comfortably passed both the House and Senate, but only in the Senate was the vote veto-proof. It may prove to be the first overrride of a veto in the Bush Presidency.
Here's my question: Are Democrats secretly hoping Republicans vote against this? It's a great issue for them, especially if the economy slips into recession as some economists predict.
- The Heritage Foundation
- Human Events
I'm rarely moved by the merits of accusations of socialism, but I think the effort is focused more on rallying public opinion. Conservatives admit that it is difficult to effectively counter arguments for expanding health care for children without seeming like a heartless ogre. Unless of course you can persuade people that doing so places those kids under the thumb of big brother.
I'll file this under "framing," the attempt to influence how people process information about a specific issue.
The show down over SCHIP's re authorization will be interesting. It comfortably passed both the House and Senate, but only in the Senate was the vote veto-proof. It may prove to be the first overrride of a veto in the Bush Presidency.
Here's my question: Are Democrats secretly hoping Republicans vote against this? It's a great issue for them, especially if the economy slips into recession as some economists predict.
New Power Points
I've posted some revised powerpoints on my faculty page. They are still incomplete, but they have enough info for us to cover next week in class. Expect modifications.
2301: Section Two (Constitutions)
2302: Section Two (The Executive)
I've decided remove the link from this blog because they are difficult to update. I've also decided to consolidate the entire lectures for each section on one set of powerpoints. Unless this proves confusing. I'll use this format for the rest of the semester.
2301: Section Two (Constitutions)
2302: Section Two (The Executive)
I've decided remove the link from this blog because they are difficult to update. I've also decided to consolidate the entire lectures for each section on one set of powerpoints. Unless this proves confusing. I'll use this format for the rest of the semester.
Attention TBA's
You need to step things up. Only a couple of you did remotely well on the open book, 24 hour, take home exam.
You had a full day, with an open book, to answer 20 questions. There are no excuses for not making a high A on this thing.
Here are hints about how you can do better in the future.
1-Answer every question. If you see 20 questions on the test, send 20 answers back.
2-Read the material. These are open book questions because I have no idea if you are going to cheat, so I make the issue moot. But allowing you to look at the book means that you will be expected to get things right. Reading the material ahead of time helps.
3-Answer the question I ask, not the question you want to answer. If the question asks you to elaborate on a subject, elaborate on that subject. That means that I want you to explain it. Demonstrate to me that you can do more than repeat what is in the textbook.
4-Be lengthy. Fully answer the question without degenerating into pure bs. A brief incomplete answer gets a tiny grade, a lengthy one gets a higher grade.
You should also ask yourself if you have the discipline to take classes without supervision. It is no sin to need the structure of a lecture class. I tend to prefer them.
Please don't waste my time, or your money if you don't intend on giving this class the time necessary to succeed. I get paid the same whether you pass or fail.
You had a full day, with an open book, to answer 20 questions. There are no excuses for not making a high A on this thing.
Here are hints about how you can do better in the future.
1-Answer every question. If you see 20 questions on the test, send 20 answers back.
2-Read the material. These are open book questions because I have no idea if you are going to cheat, so I make the issue moot. But allowing you to look at the book means that you will be expected to get things right. Reading the material ahead of time helps.
3-Answer the question I ask, not the question you want to answer. If the question asks you to elaborate on a subject, elaborate on that subject. That means that I want you to explain it. Demonstrate to me that you can do more than repeat what is in the textbook.
4-Be lengthy. Fully answer the question without degenerating into pure bs. A brief incomplete answer gets a tiny grade, a lengthy one gets a higher grade.
You should also ask yourself if you have the discipline to take classes without supervision. It is no sin to need the structure of a lecture class. I tend to prefer them.
Please don't waste my time, or your money if you don't intend on giving this class the time necessary to succeed. I get paid the same whether you pass or fail.
Bush Signs College Cost Bill
In a previous post I discussed the College Cost Reduction Act, and stated that Bush was expected to sign it.
He did so yesterday.
He did so yesterday.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Scenes From the Countryside
An old political statement near the intersection of I-36 and FM 2004. Here's the website. They seem to like Ron Paul. Some background on John Birch, and the society, from wikipedia.
The Clampdown Begins
Soldiers in Myanmar have begun clamping down on the protests. They've been shooting into crowds and dragging away troublesome monks.
It's standard totalitarian procedure. The monks apparently are a strong enough organization within the country that they believe they have the ability to force limits on the country's military rulers--which would make them mere authoritarians.
The rulers, if they are to keep the status quo, must demonstrate that they cannot be limited, thus the clampdown.
So that's were we are.
It's standard totalitarian procedure. The monks apparently are a strong enough organization within the country that they believe they have the ability to force limits on the country's military rulers--which would make them mere authoritarians.
The rulers, if they are to keep the status quo, must demonstrate that they cannot be limited, thus the clampdown.
So that's were we are.
Proposed Amendments to the Texas Constitution
Since we are covering Texas Constitution in 2301, we ought to point out that there will elections on November 6th for the 16 amendments proposed by the legislature this past spring.
This link takes you to the analysis conducted by the Texas Legislative Council.
Here is another link that analyses them in a more condensed form.
None are a remotely controversial as the same-sex marriage ban which was approved last time, or the restriction on medical liability lawsuits the time before that. Most touch on tax issues, and the allowance of bonds to be issued for specific purposes. Texas is a pay as you go state, so unless there is a constitutional authorization, the only funds that can be spent for a specific purpose in a two year funding cycle are those earned in that two year cycle.
The most interesting one for this area is #15 which would authorize $3 Billion to be spent for a Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. No word on where this center will be and if the funds will be dispersed throughout the state or concentrated in one place. I hear lips smacking at the Texas Medical Center.
This link takes you to the analysis conducted by the Texas Legislative Council.
Here is another link that analyses them in a more condensed form.
None are a remotely controversial as the same-sex marriage ban which was approved last time, or the restriction on medical liability lawsuits the time before that. Most touch on tax issues, and the allowance of bonds to be issued for specific purposes. Texas is a pay as you go state, so unless there is a constitutional authorization, the only funds that can be spent for a specific purpose in a two year funding cycle are those earned in that two year cycle.
The most interesting one for this area is #15 which would authorize $3 Billion to be spent for a Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. No word on where this center will be and if the funds will be dispersed throughout the state or concentrated in one place. I hear lips smacking at the Texas Medical Center.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Now They Tell Us
Policy makers want kids to study math and science . . . something about a competitive edge.
But parents don't agree.
It's important, but not for me.
But parents don't agree.
It's important, but not for me.
Free Speech Kills
Mike McConnell tells the Senate the same thing he told the House. Open discussion of surveillance will kill Americans. But does it do so at a constitutional price?
What would Patrick Henry say?
What would Patrick Henry say?
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
The Right to Travel
I use the right to travel as an example of the potential unalienable rights that might fall under the heading "among" in the Declaration of Independence - see below - but do it with tongue in cheek.
Maybe I should rethink this. The Daily Kos points out that a recent copy of the Federal Register contains something called the Secure Flight Plan which, they argue, will allow the Department of Homeland Security to take over pre-screening passengers, which means that the federal government will have to give you permission to get on an airplane before you can fly.
This has been in the works for a while and administration officials say that this will not violate individual liberties.
Sticklers among you will point out, correctly, that this does necessarily restrict travel, just a certain mode of transportation. But still, where does this end?
Maybe I should rethink this. The Daily Kos points out that a recent copy of the Federal Register contains something called the Secure Flight Plan which, they argue, will allow the Department of Homeland Security to take over pre-screening passengers, which means that the federal government will have to give you permission to get on an airplane before you can fly.
This has been in the works for a while and administration officials say that this will not violate individual liberties.
Sticklers among you will point out, correctly, that this does necessarily restrict travel, just a certain mode of transportation. But still, where does this end?
On Dialogue, Democracy, and Unalienable Rights
Two recent events call to mind continuing conflict over the role dialogue is supposed to play in policy formation, and whether we are committed to a full discussion of controversial topics, or prefer that people simply keep their mouths shut.
The first came to light during exchanges in hearings before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence. The topic was whether the temporary suspension of the need for intelligence agents to get warrants before they intercept messages from foreign suspects directed to Americans. The bulk of the dispute concerns whether the requirement imposed a time limit that would limit the effectiveness of the searches, but a more subtle, and perhaps significant exchange touched on the hearings themselves and the very fact that these issues are being debated at all (from an ABC news story):
"Some committee members questioned McConnell's credibility, especially comments he made to the El Paso Times last month that Americans would die because of open testimony in Congress. In that interview, McConnell was asked by the reporter, "So you're saying that the reporting and the debate in Congress mean that some Americans are going to die?"
McConnell responded by saying, "That's what I mean -- because we have made it so public. We used to do these things very differently, but for whatever reason it's a democratic process and sunshine's a good thing."
Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., told McConnell, "You're saying and standing by that, your previous statement, that when we debate these issues in the Congress of the United States, which is our system, that Americans -- some Americans -- are going to die. And I really think that's a stretch. And I think because of some of these things, it has done damage to what you bring forward. It puts a dent in the credibility."
This dilemma, unique to democratic governments, has been noted before. Alexis de Tocqueville suggested that democracies would be disadvantaged in military disputes because of this need for transparency. Secrecy allows for effective defense policymaking, but creates opportunities for abuse. On the one hand, McConnell may be making a valid point about what is necessary for him to do his job effectively, but he could also simply be defending his turf.
The second event is the Iranian President Ahmadinejad's visit to New York, and his public speaking engagements while there--notably his address to an audience at Columbia University.
Some argued that he should not have been allowed to speak at all given his controversial views on subjects ranging from the existence of Israel, to whether the Holocaust really happened, and the treatment of women and dissident groups in his country.
Others claim that the right to free speech requires all points of view to be debated in open forums, to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Oliver Wendel Holmes, in a Supreme Court decision, suggested that when we stifle a viewpoint we may be betraying a suspicion that we cannot successfully argue against it. If we think someone is wrong, we should give them the opportunity to speak their views and argue against it.
Personally I'm one the side of both transparency and open debate and believe that our nation is stronger as a result of both, but grows weaker when they are not allowed.
In 2301 we spend sometime speculating about the meaning of the term "among" in the Declaration of Independence's unalienable rights clause ("among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"). Other rights exist. Might one be the right to information?
The first came to light during exchanges in hearings before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence. The topic was whether the temporary suspension of the need for intelligence agents to get warrants before they intercept messages from foreign suspects directed to Americans. The bulk of the dispute concerns whether the requirement imposed a time limit that would limit the effectiveness of the searches, but a more subtle, and perhaps significant exchange touched on the hearings themselves and the very fact that these issues are being debated at all (from an ABC news story):
"Some committee members questioned McConnell's credibility, especially comments he made to the El Paso Times last month that Americans would die because of open testimony in Congress. In that interview, McConnell was asked by the reporter, "So you're saying that the reporting and the debate in Congress mean that some Americans are going to die?"
McConnell responded by saying, "That's what I mean -- because we have made it so public. We used to do these things very differently, but for whatever reason it's a democratic process and sunshine's a good thing."
Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., told McConnell, "You're saying and standing by that, your previous statement, that when we debate these issues in the Congress of the United States, which is our system, that Americans -- some Americans -- are going to die. And I really think that's a stretch. And I think because of some of these things, it has done damage to what you bring forward. It puts a dent in the credibility."
This dilemma, unique to democratic governments, has been noted before. Alexis de Tocqueville suggested that democracies would be disadvantaged in military disputes because of this need for transparency. Secrecy allows for effective defense policymaking, but creates opportunities for abuse. On the one hand, McConnell may be making a valid point about what is necessary for him to do his job effectively, but he could also simply be defending his turf.
The second event is the Iranian President Ahmadinejad's visit to New York, and his public speaking engagements while there--notably his address to an audience at Columbia University.
Some argued that he should not have been allowed to speak at all given his controversial views on subjects ranging from the existence of Israel, to whether the Holocaust really happened, and the treatment of women and dissident groups in his country.
Others claim that the right to free speech requires all points of view to be debated in open forums, to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Oliver Wendel Holmes, in a Supreme Court decision, suggested that when we stifle a viewpoint we may be betraying a suspicion that we cannot successfully argue against it. If we think someone is wrong, we should give them the opportunity to speak their views and argue against it.
Personally I'm one the side of both transparency and open debate and believe that our nation is stronger as a result of both, but grows weaker when they are not allowed.
In 2301 we spend sometime speculating about the meaning of the term "among" in the Declaration of Independence's unalienable rights clause ("among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"). Other rights exist. Might one be the right to information?
Monday, September 24, 2007
The Little Rock Nine
Fifty years ago today, Eisenhower sent federal troops to enforce a federal court order to desegregate Central High School.
In his words, the troops were to ensure that "the mob" did not succeed in thwarting the legal process.
Ironically, given the recent controversy surrounding the Jena 6 and the recent court decisions that some argue have effectively overturned Brown v Board, some wonder how far as a society we have progressed since 1957.
This is also the anniversary of the last day the Brooklyn Dodgers played in Brooklyn.
In his words, the troops were to ensure that "the mob" did not succeed in thwarting the legal process.
Ironically, given the recent controversy surrounding the Jena 6 and the recent court decisions that some argue have effectively overturned Brown v Board, some wonder how far as a society we have progressed since 1957.
This is also the anniversary of the last day the Brooklyn Dodgers played in Brooklyn.
Monks Protest in Myanmar
Myanmar is on most lists of the world's most totalitarian, repressive governments. Their military leaders take a dim view of opposition in any form. They have been able to operate hidden from view over much of their history, but that may change.
Recent protests by monks have tested their ability to effectively clamp down dissent, both for the sheer size of the protest and because they have all been televised. Though the leadership may have few moral qualms about a broad attack on the monks, it could look bad.
Some have argued that the most effective tool for expanding individuals liberty has been mass communications, especially satellite television, and now the Internet. Little happens in secret anymore. Television coverage of the attacks on civil rights marchers in the 1960s helped build support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but this result isn't inevitable. The Rwanda massacres were fueled by radio propaganda, so the sword is double edged.
Recent protests by monks have tested their ability to effectively clamp down dissent, both for the sheer size of the protest and because they have all been televised. Though the leadership may have few moral qualms about a broad attack on the monks, it could look bad.
Some have argued that the most effective tool for expanding individuals liberty has been mass communications, especially satellite television, and now the Internet. Little happens in secret anymore. Television coverage of the attacks on civil rights marchers in the 1960s helped build support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but this result isn't inevitable. The Rwanda massacres were fueled by radio propaganda, so the sword is double edged.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
SCHIP, Ideology and the 2008 Elections
The current controversy over the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) provides us a good opportunity to clarify the nature of ideological conflict and the political gamesmanship that occurs prior to election season.
CHIP is designed to ensure that children whose families are too rich for welfare assistance, but too poor to afford private health insurance on their own can get it. It is a modest attempt to whittle down the large number of uninsured people in the United States, many of whom are children, by providing a subsidy for private insurance. The program is a block grant, which means that the states are given money by the federal government, which they can divide as they see fit.
But since it is funded by the federal government, and since it is set to expire at the end of September, it raises recently dormant questions about the proper relationship between the individual and the state, and does so within the context of a presidential election.
The typical conservative position begins with the idea that the individual should be free to enter into, or not enter into, any contract they choose. To impose a program on an individual is to minimize individual liberty. They would also hold that society should not be put in a position where they are forced to provide services for individuals, who they suspect may be able to provide them for themselves or their children, if they put their minds to it. This touches on the moral hazard argument that some used to argue against federal assistance for the hedge funds that invested too heavily in the sub-prime mortgage market. People should bear the responsibility for their choices. But even if assistance is justified, the conservative argues that the federal government is not the appropriate venue for providing it. Ideally the private sector should do so because they are more likely to do it efficiently. Governmental programs are famously leaky when it comes to transferring funds from one place to another. From a business perspective, this is attractive to conservatives also. Public spending can crowd out private opportunities.
The liberal would respond by stating that the lack of available health insurance is the fault of the free market, not the individual or government. There is no incentive for private insurers to protect the poor (no money in it), so government must provide it. It is part of the implicit social contract that binds citizens with the greater society and can allow individuals the space to develop their capabilities so they can then grow more self sufficient. To not do so would also invite social disruption which could undermine the stability necessary to maintain a healthy economy. They are less likely to buy into the idea that these programs can create dependency on the part of the beneficiaries, and also would point out that the program is in fact run by the states, though funded by the national government, so it is somewhat responsive to local interests. The true liberal however would have no problem with the federal government running the program because that would allow the program to not be affected by local prejudices which may seek to keep certain populations away from the health care that may allow them to rise in society.
The timing of the conflict is significant. It will expire at the end of the month unless reauthorized. Democrats see this as an opportunity to not only expand the program but do so in a way that commits presidential candidates for it or against it. The pundits predict that health care will be the dominant domestic political issue of 2008 and that CHIP is the first battle in the war over it's design.
President Bush sees this as a way to reestablish his conservative bonafides, and has threatened to veto any bill sent to him that does more than simply reauthorize the existing program as is. Democrats certainly hope that any Republican that votes with the president will position themselves in a difficult position, especially if the economy slips into recession.
Some find this cynical, but clarity on this issue gives voters the ability to impact policy since they can cast meaningful votes for or against candidates based on their positions.
Here are some useful links:
-Background from the Congressional Budget Office
-From the Texas Health and Human Services Commission
-Background from the Heritage Foundation
-Opposition from the Cato Institute
-LA Times predicts a Bush Veto
-Is there a religious obligation to provide health insurance?
CHIP is designed to ensure that children whose families are too rich for welfare assistance, but too poor to afford private health insurance on their own can get it. It is a modest attempt to whittle down the large number of uninsured people in the United States, many of whom are children, by providing a subsidy for private insurance. The program is a block grant, which means that the states are given money by the federal government, which they can divide as they see fit.
But since it is funded by the federal government, and since it is set to expire at the end of September, it raises recently dormant questions about the proper relationship between the individual and the state, and does so within the context of a presidential election.
The typical conservative position begins with the idea that the individual should be free to enter into, or not enter into, any contract they choose. To impose a program on an individual is to minimize individual liberty. They would also hold that society should not be put in a position where they are forced to provide services for individuals, who they suspect may be able to provide them for themselves or their children, if they put their minds to it. This touches on the moral hazard argument that some used to argue against federal assistance for the hedge funds that invested too heavily in the sub-prime mortgage market. People should bear the responsibility for their choices. But even if assistance is justified, the conservative argues that the federal government is not the appropriate venue for providing it. Ideally the private sector should do so because they are more likely to do it efficiently. Governmental programs are famously leaky when it comes to transferring funds from one place to another. From a business perspective, this is attractive to conservatives also. Public spending can crowd out private opportunities.
The liberal would respond by stating that the lack of available health insurance is the fault of the free market, not the individual or government. There is no incentive for private insurers to protect the poor (no money in it), so government must provide it. It is part of the implicit social contract that binds citizens with the greater society and can allow individuals the space to develop their capabilities so they can then grow more self sufficient. To not do so would also invite social disruption which could undermine the stability necessary to maintain a healthy economy. They are less likely to buy into the idea that these programs can create dependency on the part of the beneficiaries, and also would point out that the program is in fact run by the states, though funded by the national government, so it is somewhat responsive to local interests. The true liberal however would have no problem with the federal government running the program because that would allow the program to not be affected by local prejudices which may seek to keep certain populations away from the health care that may allow them to rise in society.
The timing of the conflict is significant. It will expire at the end of the month unless reauthorized. Democrats see this as an opportunity to not only expand the program but do so in a way that commits presidential candidates for it or against it. The pundits predict that health care will be the dominant domestic political issue of 2008 and that CHIP is the first battle in the war over it's design.
President Bush sees this as a way to reestablish his conservative bonafides, and has threatened to veto any bill sent to him that does more than simply reauthorize the existing program as is. Democrats certainly hope that any Republican that votes with the president will position themselves in a difficult position, especially if the economy slips into recession.
Some find this cynical, but clarity on this issue gives voters the ability to impact policy since they can cast meaningful votes for or against candidates based on their positions.
Here are some useful links:
-Background from the Congressional Budget Office
-From the Texas Health and Human Services Commission
-Background from the Heritage Foundation
-Opposition from the Cato Institute
-LA Times predicts a Bush Veto
-Is there a religious obligation to provide health insurance?
Thursday, September 20, 2007
The Power of 60
Three majority votes in the Senate failed this week because Democrats were unable to muster 60 votes in their favor. 60 allows for a cloture vote, which breaks a filibuster.
1- A proposal to lengthen home leaves failed even though it received a majority vote of 56 to 44.
(S A 2909)
2- A proposal to give DC a vote in Congress failed despite receiving a vote of 57 to 42. (S 1257)
3- A proposal to habeas corpus to those detained by the United States despite a vote of 56 to 43. (SA 2022)
No surprise really since the Senate, by design, has always been able to empower a minority to stop legislation. That's why it looks the way it does. If we tallied the populations represented by the senators we may well find that they represent the interest of an even smaller fraction of the population.
The votes demonstrate that president Bush still has the ability to rally his party behind him. If the population is firmly behind the Democrats, they will be able to use these votes as campaign items in 2008. That's why we have elections.
Here's my question: When Democrats were in the minority and used similar tactics, Republicans argued that they violated democratic principles and proposed a nuclear, or constitutional, option that would have eliminated filibusters. It's not a constitutional power after all. So why don't we hear the same from Democrats?
1- A proposal to lengthen home leaves failed even though it received a majority vote of 56 to 44.
(S A 2909)
2- A proposal to give DC a vote in Congress failed despite receiving a vote of 57 to 42. (S 1257)
3- A proposal to habeas corpus to those detained by the United States despite a vote of 56 to 43. (SA 2022)
No surprise really since the Senate, by design, has always been able to empower a minority to stop legislation. That's why it looks the way it does. If we tallied the populations represented by the senators we may well find that they represent the interest of an even smaller fraction of the population.
The votes demonstrate that president Bush still has the ability to rally his party behind him. If the population is firmly behind the Democrats, they will be able to use these votes as campaign items in 2008. That's why we have elections.
Here's my question: When Democrats were in the minority and used similar tactics, Republicans argued that they violated democratic principles and proposed a nuclear, or constitutional, option that would have eliminated filibusters. It's not a constitutional power after all. So why don't we hear the same from Democrats?
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Regulate Me!
The Sunday New York Times had an odd story regarding the industries and their efforts to create, rather than dismantle, new federal regulations.
Businesses which had once seen their bottom line enhanced by fewer regulations now see four reasons why they now protect it.
1--they are now competing with products from foreign countries which are under priced because they do not meet the same health, safety and environmental standards.
2--doing so may protect them in liability lawsuits.
3--and it may allow them to avoid potentially tougher regulations by states.
4--they seem concerned that Democrats may soon expand their power and also pass tougher regulations.
The story contains a graphic highlighting 14 industries and the efforts within each. Here are a few:
Automobiles: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers are pushing for increases in fuel efficiency
Cigarettes: The Altria Group is willing to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco products as drugs.
Fireworks: The American Fireworks Standards Laboratory wants mandatory testing to ensure that fireworks explode only as intended.
Mortgages: The Mortgage Bankers Association want to curtail predatory mortgage lending.
Toys: The Toy Industry Association wants to mandate tests on products before they go to market.
All are concessions, but are tuned to shifts in the political climate and public opinion. We should recall that the New Deal policies, as unpopular as they may have been to businesses, were argued to have helped save capitalism by saving it from its excesses. In addition, many regulatory agencies, like the Federal Communications Commission, were originally established by the request of the businesses they regulated.
What this tells us is that federal agencies can often work to the benefit of the regulated industries. This idea is the backbone of the concept of the iron triangle.
Businesses which had once seen their bottom line enhanced by fewer regulations now see four reasons why they now protect it.
1--they are now competing with products from foreign countries which are under priced because they do not meet the same health, safety and environmental standards.
2--doing so may protect them in liability lawsuits.
3--and it may allow them to avoid potentially tougher regulations by states.
4--they seem concerned that Democrats may soon expand their power and also pass tougher regulations.
The story contains a graphic highlighting 14 industries and the efforts within each. Here are a few:
Automobiles: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers are pushing for increases in fuel efficiency
Cigarettes: The Altria Group is willing to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco products as drugs.
Fireworks: The American Fireworks Standards Laboratory wants mandatory testing to ensure that fireworks explode only as intended.
Mortgages: The Mortgage Bankers Association want to curtail predatory mortgage lending.
Toys: The Toy Industry Association wants to mandate tests on products before they go to market.
All are concessions, but are tuned to shifts in the political climate and public opinion. We should recall that the New Deal policies, as unpopular as they may have been to businesses, were argued to have helped save capitalism by saving it from its excesses. In addition, many regulatory agencies, like the Federal Communications Commission, were originally established by the request of the businesses they regulated.
What this tells us is that federal agencies can often work to the benefit of the regulated industries. This idea is the backbone of the concept of the iron triangle.
The Feds Cut Interests Rates
Monetary policy is in the news today. The Federal Reserve Board cut the federal funds rate and the discount rate today by large margins. Each by half a percentage point.
This was the first time the federal funds rate was cut in four years and the first time since Ben Bernanke became chair of the fed.
Both actions reduce the cost, to banks, of borrowing money, and in turn affect the amount that they then charge you and I in interest rates on credit cards, car loans and home mortgages.
Their actions are an attempt to infuse cash (liquidity) in to the economy following the collapse of the subprime mortgage business. It also provides an indication to the business community how the fed under Bernanke will act in the future when faced with financial issues. The rates had risen in small increments over the past four years, which indicated that the fed was worried about an overheated economy that could become inflationary. The chief concern right now is recession.
The markets do not like uncertainly. Once they figure out the behavior of a fed chairman (like Alan Greenspan) they tend to want to keep them in place so they know what to expect when they are called to make a decision. Chairman tend to hold on to their jobs for 10-15 years, which allows a degree of stability to the economy. Now they have their first indication about what Bernanke is inclined to do.
1--Give a clear statement regarding the fed's intent ("The tightening of credit conditions has the potential to intensify the housing correction and to restrain economic growth more generally. Today's action is intended to help forestall some of the adverse effects on the broader economy that might otherwise arise from the disruptions in financial markets and to promote moderate growth over time."
2--And make a significant change that will make it less likely that further changes are necessary.
Both are different than the activities of his predecessor who was famously cryptic in his statements and gradual in his rate cuts or increases.
When we cover the fed and economic policymaking in the last section of 2302, I try to point out that an advantage of monetary policy as a macroeconomic instrument is that it allows for quick response to changing economic circumstances. The fed already has statutory authority to raise and lower rates and so we don't have to worry about the politics associated with congressional action.
This was the first time the federal funds rate was cut in four years and the first time since Ben Bernanke became chair of the fed.
Both actions reduce the cost, to banks, of borrowing money, and in turn affect the amount that they then charge you and I in interest rates on credit cards, car loans and home mortgages.
Their actions are an attempt to infuse cash (liquidity) in to the economy following the collapse of the subprime mortgage business. It also provides an indication to the business community how the fed under Bernanke will act in the future when faced with financial issues. The rates had risen in small increments over the past four years, which indicated that the fed was worried about an overheated economy that could become inflationary. The chief concern right now is recession.
The markets do not like uncertainly. Once they figure out the behavior of a fed chairman (like Alan Greenspan) they tend to want to keep them in place so they know what to expect when they are called to make a decision. Chairman tend to hold on to their jobs for 10-15 years, which allows a degree of stability to the economy. Now they have their first indication about what Bernanke is inclined to do.
1--Give a clear statement regarding the fed's intent ("The tightening of credit conditions has the potential to intensify the housing correction and to restrain economic growth more generally. Today's action is intended to help forestall some of the adverse effects on the broader economy that might otherwise arise from the disruptions in financial markets and to promote moderate growth over time."
2--And make a significant change that will make it less likely that further changes are necessary.
Both are different than the activities of his predecessor who was famously cryptic in his statements and gradual in his rate cuts or increases.
When we cover the fed and economic policymaking in the last section of 2302, I try to point out that an advantage of monetary policy as a macroeconomic instrument is that it allows for quick response to changing economic circumstances. The fed already has statutory authority to raise and lower rates and so we don't have to worry about the politics associated with congressional action.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
A Dollar Auction
I've never heard of this before, but it ranks up there with the prisoner's dilemma. It helps explain how bad decisions can be compounded.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Crusader Watch
While scrolling through other sites related to the Islamic State of Iraq I stumbled across Crusader Watch, which seems to be an Al Qaeda friendly blog. It'll worth a look from time to time.
Of course I'm sure this'll put me on some NSA watch list, but I'll blame my students. They put me up to this.
Of course I'm sure this'll put me on some NSA watch list, but I'll blame my students. They put me up to this.
Want to Make a Quick $100,000?
Kill two Swedes responsible for a cartoon dubbed offensive to Islam (the prophet Mohammad is depicted as a dog). Al Qaeda in Iraq made the offer and is willing to toss in an additional $50,000 if their throats are cut.
Though we have press protections in the United States, its worth pondering what some Christians might do if a similarly offensive cartoon was published here and whether a court might rule that they were provoked by the cartoon to do whatever they did.
And if Christians don't respond violently, why might that be the case? Recent events have led to discussions of cultural differences between the Christian and Muslim world. Might that help explain this?
Discuss.
By the way, the news story states that the bounty was actually issued by the Islamic State in Iraq. I'm obviously behind the curve on this since they claim to have been in existence for over a year, but it seems to me that we now have a real conflict between two groups each seeking legitimate control over a territory and its inhabitants.
Though we have press protections in the United States, its worth pondering what some Christians might do if a similarly offensive cartoon was published here and whether a court might rule that they were provoked by the cartoon to do whatever they did.
And if Christians don't respond violently, why might that be the case? Recent events have led to discussions of cultural differences between the Christian and Muslim world. Might that help explain this?
Discuss.
By the way, the news story states that the bounty was actually issued by the Islamic State in Iraq. I'm obviously behind the curve on this since they claim to have been in existence for over a year, but it seems to me that we now have a real conflict between two groups each seeking legitimate control over a territory and its inhabitants.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Review for 2302 Test One
2302 students, know these topics for test one:
Three functions of Congress
representation
policymaking
oversight
magna carta
design of Congress in the Articles of Confederation
design of Congress in the Constitution
how is the Texas Legislature different than the U.S. Constitution?
what are the constitutional offices established in the U.S. Constitution?
disputes over representation in convention
why Congress is bicameral
design differences between house and senate
delegates
trustees
identify representatives and senators
bill making process
what is a committee?
what does a committee do?
types of committees
what is a committee chair?
differences between committees in the U.S. and Texas.
subcommittees
committees important to local reps
earmarks
the pork barrel
log rolling
parties in Congress
development
party organizations
party officials
floor leaders
whips
role of parties in Congress
unified government
divided government
who holds the following positions:
-speaker
-president of the senate
-house and senate majority and minority leader
-house and senate majority and minority whips
party line voting
how party leaders maintain cohesion
what drives the behavior of members of Congress
Gerrymandering-benign -racial
incumbency advantage
re-election rates
Baker v. Carr
term limits: pros and cons
Three functions of Congress
representation
policymaking
oversight
magna carta
design of Congress in the Articles of Confederation
design of Congress in the Constitution
how is the Texas Legislature different than the U.S. Constitution?
what are the constitutional offices established in the U.S. Constitution?
disputes over representation in convention
why Congress is bicameral
design differences between house and senate
delegates
trustees
identify representatives and senators
bill making process
what is a committee?
what does a committee do?
types of committees
what is a committee chair?
differences between committees in the U.S. and Texas.
subcommittees
committees important to local reps
earmarks
the pork barrel
log rolling
parties in Congress
development
party organizations
party officials
floor leaders
whips
role of parties in Congress
unified government
divided government
who holds the following positions:
-speaker
-president of the senate
-house and senate majority and minority leader
-house and senate majority and minority whips
party line voting
how party leaders maintain cohesion
what drives the behavior of members of Congress
Gerrymandering-benign -racial
incumbency advantage
re-election rates
Baker v. Carr
term limits: pros and cons
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)