Wandering Reveries
Apparently, the buzz on the internet today is that Gov. Rick Perry has blocked some reporters from following his personal twitter account. It was mentioned on Washington Post’s blog The Fix, CNN’s Tech Tumblr, has been reblogged and tweeted about. But it all began last week when Tom Benning of the Dallas Morning News noticed he had been blocked and then blogged about it. Mr Benning asked the Governor’s office for clarification, and according to his update, this was the response: “Yes, it is the governor’s personal account, so he manages it as he likes. He uses non-state resources.” This actually reminds me of the hullabaloo raised when Gov. Perry wouldn’t meet with the editorial boards of newspapers around the state, which is why I find Matt Stuart’s comment on the CNN post - “Internet PR fail” - curious. If it’s Perry vs. the Press, then Perry wins. He may look bad among the media, and liberals may bash him for it (all of which occurred last year during the campaign), but like him or not, he wins that PR battle. Granted, Twitter and social media in general is a different medium; however, it’s the same chapter different verse: Rick Perry vs. the Press. The more important question in this scenario is the one not being asked or looked at by many people, and that is: Should Gov. Perry’s personal twitter account (or the personal account of any public official for that matter) be subject to the Public Information Act? In April of last year, the Texas Senate State Affairs had a hearing on social media and open records (read here and here). The findings of their interim hearing can be read here.
March 2011
23 posts
February 2011
18 posts
Evilteabagger recently blogged about legislating morality. He claims that as an atheist he is disadvantaged by legislation based upon morality, specifically legislation based on religious values. However, all legislation is based upon some moral or ethical precept (even the decision to decriminalise activity is predicated on some moral/ethical foundation). Would he be disadvantaged by legislation based on Randian Objectivism? Or is he only offended by religious values? This is why I cannot put much stock in the argument that we cannot legislate morality. Randian Objectivism is an ethical system of moral values, and if we base policy on it, then we are legislating morality. Even his argument against the prohibition proposed by Sen. Reid (“to allow the individual make these choices for themselves”) is a moral argument.
Then siv1787 commented on the post by saying that legislating morality goes “against the clause in the First Amendment which states that the government shall make no law respecting a religion.” This is a complete misunderstanding of the establishment clause as it was understood by the Founders, and comes dangerously close to suggesting that moral values are not permissible in the public sphere. As to the establishment clause, it prohibited the establishment of a particular religion - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. - or religious denomination - Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, etc. - from being the official religion of the federal government and that religion receiving the official support of the federal government (as was the case in some states). Madison’s original version of the 1st Amendment clearly establishes this: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.” The debate in Congress further evidences this plain fact of the language in the 1st Amendment (see Footnote 5). You can read the full debate in the Annals of Congress (available here).
Morals and ethics are a part of the public sphere and public debate, including legislation. And as long as human beings are engaged in the process of public policy, morals will be a part of the legislative process. To say that you don’t think we should legislate morality simply because you do not like the precepts of a particular lawmaker or agree with his value system, ignores that you too are arguing from the perspective of your particular value system, which you would use to legislate if placed in office.
Well, it’s official; I have finally finished reading The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler (and it’s only the abridged version). As mentioned in a previous post, it has taken a long time for me to finish reading this particular book. It is an intriguing review of world history, and an interesting contrast to other philosophies of history, such as that of G.W.F. Hegel.
In his work, Spengler identifies three major cultures: Classical (Greek and Romans), Magian (Egyptians, Persians, Jews and Arabs), and Faustian (the West). Spengler identifies how each Culture views the world, the symbols of each culture, and how this affects the art, philosophy, religion and science within each Culture. He argues that each Culture is unique, and when it dies, it’s art, science, etc. die with it. For example, Spengler does not see the Renaissance as a rebirth of the Classical period, because that Culture had died: ‘The Renaissance never even touched the real Classical, let alone understood it or “revived” it’ (p. 124).
Spengler’s main line of attack is against the idea of that history has a universal destiny towards which all mankind is inexorably moving. Instead, there are different cultures which arise, grow, fade and die (not limited to the 3 cultures listed above). As he writes in his introduction, “Each has it’s own new possibilities of self-expression, which arise, ripen, decay and never return” (p. 17). However, there is a pattern which Spengler identifies in the rise and fall of cultures.
The last stage of this pattern is “Civilization,” which ends in Caesarism. Caesarism is defined as an age of Imperialism, and the model is obviously the Roman Empire. Spengler notes that by the time Caesar took power many people, especially the most capable, had long since stopped participating in politics and elections. In this final period of a culture, what Spengler calls “high politics” comes to an end, and it is all private feuds, ambitions, etc.
I can’t say I understood everything Spengler was writing about (e.g., my understanding of science is limited), nor can I say I agreed with everything he wrote, but it was definitely worth the read. It puts many things in perspective, and gives one a lot to chew on when considering the movement of history.
A link shared with us by precinct1706 has allowed me an opportunity to share with you how to keep an eye on what your state representative or senator is doing for you, particularly if you live in Texas.
The link is from the Texas Democratic Party in relation to legislation filed by Rep. Paul Workman, who owns a construction firm in Austin, TX. This is a standard oppo technique: look up the filed bills and find those related to the legislator’s profession (since the Texas Legislature is a part time gig, legislators have other employment - attorneys, businessmen, ranchers, etc.). They also released this information the same day that the building associations are at the state capitol visiting with their state legislators. The link gives to impression that Rep. Workman is only filing legislation relating to construction, while ignoring jobs (an odd claim given that bills helping construction would presumably lead to more construction jobs) and education (not true when you look at the bills he has authored).
I say all of this to get here. The Texas Legislature Online is an excellent resource for those who are interested in what is going on in the Pink Building. For example, here is a list of all the bills filed by Rep. Workman. You can look up the legislation filed by each and every of the 181 legislators in the Texas Capitol (House and Senate). You can even get their contact information if you would like to call or write to them about a particular piece of information.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has an article looking at the tools being used to educate and involve the public in the redistricting process. Their blog post list two online redistricting tools: Dave’s Redistricting App and the Public Mapping Project. The author of the blog says it took him 5 minutes to redistrict Iowa, which was much easier to do than Texas. Here was the result of his efforts:
One thing (well two) should be incredibly obvious about this map: 1) it does not maintain communities of interest (just look at the district colored in dark blue), and 2) the districts are not compact. Took him 5 minutes, but it would probably take less time for someone to file a suit in court to challenge this plan.
The other thing to note is the disparity in population between the districts (again the dark blue colored district).
I took a shot at drawing Iowa last night - keeping in mind the two principles above, and my map was similar to the current configuration of Iowa’s Congressional districts. It also took me upwards of an hour to create a map which maintained communities of interests (I tried to keep counties wholly within a district if I could), as well as each district having approximately an equal number of population.
I point all this out, because while redistricting Iowa may be easier than trying to redistrict a state like Florida, California or Texas, it’s not that easy when you have to consider all the legal requirements that must be met. It’s great that people have the online tools; now, we have to make sure people understand the legal requirements for redistricting.
The U.S. Census has released the information for Texas. There is also an interactive map, so you can see if your state’s info has been released.
…and fails. As someone you loves doing opposition research, I was intrigued when I read about this bill introduced in the Virginia Legislature; it attempted to ban private investigators from using GPS to track legislators. As the authors of the blog noted, I don’t know how many private investigators need, or use, GPS to track state legislators, since they’re pretty easy to find, locate and then follow around. Kinda makes you wonder what the bill’s author might have to hide though.
Apparently, some Wisconsin legislators are taking a page out of the Texas playbook and breaking quorum.
A group of 14 Democratic senators in Wisconsin reportedly have fled the state to forestall a Republican-pushed bill that would greatly curtail labor union strength in that state.
Hopefully, they took notes from the grand Texas tradition.
Mrs Hoppe mentions Texas Democrats using the procedure twice: during the 2003 redistricting fight, when the House, and then the Senate, Democrats broke the quorum to stop the Republican redistricting plan (read Steve Bickerstaff’s Lines in the Sand); and 1979, when the Killer Bees - 12 Democratic Senators - broke the quorum in the Senate over an effort to move up the Texas primary date for 1980 to give former Gov. John Conally an advantage - as part of a larger battle between conservatives and liberals in Texas (read Robert Heard’s Miracle of the Killer Bees; Bill Hobby’s How Things Really Work, pp. 133-138; and John Knaggs’ Two Party Texas, pp. 236-241).
The quorum break goes back a long, long way in Texas politics. In the 12th Legislature a group of senators attempted to break the quorum during debate on the militia bill. They were unable to because the chair ordered the immediate arrest of anyone who attempted to leave the Senate floor (source: Edmund J. Davis of Texas, p. 168-69). During this particularly contentious time, Jack Hamilton used the lack of a quorum to frustrate demands of some Texas Unionists during the 1869 Constitutional Convention.
Best line of this blog was the last:
The high Wisconsin sheriff’s might check at hotels just over the stateline. It’s where elopees and Democrats-on-the-lam tend to hideout.
Referencing the Killer Ds (as the 2003 quorum breakers came to be known) stays in Oklahoma (House D’s) and New Mexico (Senate D’s). 10 of the Killer Bees held up in a single room apartment during their quorum break.
In this article from the Wall Street Journal, Mr Hilsenwrath looks at the influence Alexander Hamilton is having upon some of Europe’s central bankers, specifically Jean-Claude Trichet, President of the European Central Bank. In particular, Mr Trichet is looking at Hamilton’s arguments in favour of the federal government’s assumption of the state debts as a way to strengthen the European Union. Personally, I am more partial to Hamilton than Jefferson (but this wasn’t always the case); in part because of something I have written in another post: “In sum, if taken seriously and acted upon, Jefferson’s philosophy has a paralyzing effect upon government, which Jefferson was clearly cognizant of and which he ignored on more than one occasion.” However, over time I’m becoming more partial to Adams than to either of the aforementioned.
The original Texas Declaration of Independence will be on display at the state archives building - named for one of the signers of the TX DOI, Lorenzo de Zavala - starting Thursday, February 17th until April 21st. This is a rare glimpse at an unique piece of history.
In this post, Nate Silver looks at the potential Republican field for 2012 and asks if there is reason for Republicans to be concerned. Comparing the favourable/unfavourable numbers, the 2012 Republican field actually looks worse than the 2004 Democratic field, which sent Sen. John Kerry to do battle. None of the potential Republican candidates are very popular (including Rep. Ron Paul, who just won the CPAC straw poll). As some of the candidates, such as Daniels, Pawlenty and Thune, are not well known, it is possible that they could raise their favourable numbers over the course next year, but will they become popular enough to take out a sitting President (something that hasn’t been done since 1992)?
According to reports yesterday, Ron Paul won CPAC’s straw poll with 30 percent of the 3,742 participants (“fewer than half of the total registered to attend” - CSM). Romney came in second with 23 percent. Now, I think this demonstrates the split within movement conservatism, but the question really is: does it matter who wins this straw poll (or any other)? CNN asked this question on Friday. The Christian Science Monitor asks the same question today. Before the 2008 Republican primary elections, Ron Paul had the most straw poll victories with 25 (source). How many states did Paul win in the Republican primary? None (and he only received 4.8% of the vote in Texas). What was his delegate total? 35 (1.6%). Straw polls are an exercise for activists, and it gives reporters something to talk about, but still a full year away from the Republican primary, most people who will be voting in the primary are not fully engaged in the process, so the results of straw polls has no impact on them (even the participants at CPAC were not fully engaged). Campaigns are about more than winning over activists; unfortunately, most Paul supporters, as well as activists for other candidates, don’t seem to understand that.
This came from fucknoliberals about Lincoln. While it is true that many things Lincoln did were unconstitutional, I want inject some fact into these bullet points, as well as sources for this information.
Abraham Lincoln’s unconstitutional and illegal war killed between 600,000 and 700,000 soldiers (as a fraction of the population, that would be over 5,000,000 dead today)
This assumes that Lincoln started the Civil War, which he did not. The war began at Fort Sumter, South Carolina. Whatever one may think of Lincoln and his actions, you can’t ignore the role of the Confederacy in starting the Civil War. (Source).
Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus, something only the Congress can do, and interned between 10,000 to 15,000 northern civilians in military prisons without charges or trials
Lincoln did suspend the writ of habeus corpus and his actions were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Merryman, but the ruling was ignored. Later, the administration ended the suspendion only to re-suspend at a later date. After the Civil War, many of the administrations acts in this regard were declared unconstitutional. (Source).
Abraham Lincoln shut down hundreds of northern newspapers by military force for criticizing his administration, including imprisoning publishers and editors in military prisons
Lincoln did indeed do this. (Source).
Abraham Lincoln’s administration had pastors and preachers imprisoned for failing to include a prayer for the president in their sermons, as had been decreed by the White House
I could not find a source for this.
Abraham Lincoln arrested and imprisoned the entire Maryland legislature so they couldn’t convene to discuss secession
Actually, he did not arrest the entire legislature, though he did arrest some members of the legislature - the pro-Confederate members. The Maryland legislature also unanimously voted to oppose secession.(Source).
Abraham Lincoln created an entire State (West Virginia) out of whole cloth so that he could install a puppet government to tighten the Republican hold on Congress
West Virginia became a state as a result of the Wheeling Conventions and a subsequent popular vote (with only 781 votes against). There were accusations of vote fraud, because Union soldiers voted in the election. The new government then applied for statehood, which was granted by Congress and signed into law by Lincoln. (Source).
Abraham Lincoln’s administration engineered election fraud on a massive scale to secure his reelection, including turning Democrats away from the polls with bayonets and issuing different colored ballots for the two parties, so that voters with the wrong color ballot could be arrested
I can find no source for this information; however, a good book on Lincoln’s second campaign is Re-electing Lincoln by John C. Waugh.
Abraham Lincoln created an income tax in direct violation of the Constitution (recall that the Constitution had to be amended in 1913 to allow the income tax, but it didn’t stop Lincoln)
Congress created the income tax, after much discussion and rejection of the plan for a property tax (the plan of Samuel Chase). The supporters of the bill in Congress argued that it was an indirect tax and called it an income duty to avoid any constitutional issues. The first income tax act was passed in 1861, and signed into law; however, there was no provision for collecting the tax, and Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary - Samuel Chase - made no effort to collect it. No income tax was collected in 1861. A second income tax bill was passed in 1862, which also included a provision for withholding, thus avoiding the a repeat of the 1861 scenario. Congress passed another tax increase in 1864. By war’s end, the income tax provided one-fifth of the Union’s revenue. The income tax was phased out by 1872. (Source: The Price of Liberty by Robert D. Hormats).
Abraham Lincoln imprisoned and exiled a sitting member of Congress, Clement Vallandigham, for criticizing his administration
Vallandigham - who was defeated for re-election in 1862 - was arrested in 1863 by General Burnside under his issued order - General Order #38. Vallandigham was then tried by a military tribunal and convicted. A federal court upheld the conviction. He was sentenced to 2 years confinement in a military prison. This sentence was changed by Lincoln, who then had Vallandigham taken to Tennessee; he later returned to Ohio after the war. (Source).
Abraham Lincoln discovered dictatorial “war powers” not enumerated in the Constitution to justify all of this*Abraham Lincoln repudiated every clause of the Declaration of Independence (which was, after all, a declaration of secession), and either he or his party after his assassination reproduced each and every charge in the Train of Abuses leveled at the despotic King George
Wanted to address one part of this point. The Declaration was not an act of secession. The colonies were not sovereign states and the Declaration had no legal authority. The states which seceded passed legal acts called ordinances of secession which had the force of law.The Declaration and the war for independence were revolutionary acts for which the people involved did not claim the force or cover of law. They knew they would be tried for treason and that the Declaration would not invoke a peaceful, legal separation.
All of this was undertaken for the express purpose of removing the Constitutional barriers to the so-called “American System” of corporate welfare, high tariffs, and centralized banking (with an inflationary fiat currency, his “greenbacks,” to pay for it all) for the benefit of Republican party political cronies
While it is true that the Civil War brought about many changes in the way the United States was governed, particularly the strengthening of the federal government, there was no central bank during the Civil War. A national bank act was passed in 1863 to provide national charters to banks who would purchase Treasury bonds and could then issue paper money. Samuel Chase - as a chief justice - wrote an opinion in 1870 which struck down the Legal Tender Act; this decision was reversed in 1871. Also, the Confederacy was printing paper currency and had a much worse rate of inflation (9000%) than the Union. (Source: The Price of Liberty by Robert D. Hormats).
Redistricting doesn’t start until next week, but the first lawsuit has already been filed.
Interesting article from Sally Jenkins in the Washington Post about how taxpayers, and fans, are getting hosed on publicly financed stadiums (Houston is still paying for the Astrodome) and some of the other accoutrement of professional football, such as flyovers.
Reports of the demise of the Westphalian system are premature, but the shifting of the relative balance of power between states, threats to states, and the populaces these threats emerge from is undeniable. A “populace-centric” approach to foreign policy would recognize the emergence and enduring nature of popular power, and free U.S. interests from becoming mired in fleeting governments or threats.
There are probably a lot of books I could place in this category, but considering many of the political debates on Tumblr and elsewhere, especially regarding the budget and related fiscal issues, I think the book more people should read is:
Deficit Politics: Public Budgeting in Its Institutional and Historical Context
It was written by Donald F. Kettl, and was written in 1992. It is a wonderful introduction to the budget process and the role of deficits upon the process. I wish more people would read this book, because it would make the debate much more informed, and perhaps more factual. I recently cited Kettl’s work in this post in response to a budget cartoon. What I would hope people would conclude from reading Kettl’s book is that the budget process is a difficult, and there are no easy solutions.
