CMC Introduction to American Politics

United States Citizenship

2012-02-10T16:23:00.000-08:00

Ways of becoming a citizen

Fourteenth Amendment

The Oath of Allegiance

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against allenemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

The complex status of Native Americans and further background

Click here to see a graph showing the foreign-born population of the US 1850-2000.

Data on foreign-born population

Immigration in much in the news.

The duties of citizenship

Federalism, continued

2012-02-07T17:48:00.000-08:00

Federalist 5: multiple nations?
Federalist 6: commercial republics
Federalist 7: sources of interstate disputes
Federalist 8: fear of standing armies
Federalist 39: party federal, partly national
Federalist 45: "few and defined" national powers
Federalist 46: attachments will be to the states

Perceived Advantages of Federalism:

Attitudes toward government waste

Perceived Problems of Federalism:

Federalism I

2012-02-06T12:39:00.000-08:00

Systems Of Government Powerpoint (Unitary, Confederation, Federal)

View more PowerPoint from North Gwinnett Middle School

Number of governments

Federalist 51 on "double security"

Constitutional provisions

more regarding constitution

2012-02-06T12:20:00.000-08:00

As sort of a follow up to my last post on the constitution, while the framers intentionally left loose-ends to ensure the flexibility and, more pertinent to the point of this post, the longevity of the constitution, this article suggests that at least the text of constitution is rapidly growing outdated given the ever-increasing rate of exchange of (in this case, democratic) ideas around the world. However, as the article also argues, the democratic ethos that many consider a defining point of America could not have become what it is today without the rock-solid foundation that is the Constitution. The most powerful part of the Constitution may be the spirit in which it was written and that it represents, not necessarily its utility today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html?_r=1&hp

James Madison Meets Darth Sidious

2012-02-01T19:51:00.001-08:00

[A] dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

The Federalist Papers

2012-02-01T11:23:00.000-08:00

Ron Chernow's biography undercuts the notion that Alexander Hamilton was a well-born defender of privilege. Here is a passage summing up what the born-out-of-wedlock Hamilton and his brother faced in their youth:

Let us pause briefly to tally the grim catalog of disasters that had befallen these two boys between 1765 and 1769: their father had vanished, their mother had died, their cousin and supposed protector had committed bloody suicide, and their aunt, uncle, and grandmother had all died. James, 16, and Alexander, 14, were now left alone, largely friendless and penniless. At every step in their rootless, topsy-turvy existence, they had been surrounded by failed, broken, embittered people. Their short lives had been shadowed by a stupefying sequence of bankruptcies, marital separations, deaths, scandals, and disinheritance. Such repeated shocks must have stripped Alexander Hamilton of any sense that life was fair, that he existed in a benign universe, or that he could ever count on help from anyone. That this abominable childhood produced such a strong, productive, self-reliant human being -- that this fatherless adolescent could have ended up a founding father of a country he had not yet even seen -- seems little short of miraculous.

Here is the hip-hop version (no kidding):

Concerns for deliberative democracy:

Federalist 1: "[O]f those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

The Need to Suppress Insurrection:

Federalist 9

Controlling power

Madison anticipated modern social psychology.

Federalism

Federalist 9: The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.

First Essay Assignment

2012-02-01T09:03:00.000-08:00

Below is your first assignment. Before writing it, make sure that you read Strunk and White. Also see my writing advice at http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/pages/faculty/JPitney/writing.htm, which in turn contains links to model papers.

Pick one of the following:

Find a recent (since October 2011) article pointing to a problem that Publius anticipated. (You may search newspapers at news.google.com. Explain how The Federalist sheds light on the story. In this instance, is the political system working as the Founders hoped?
Pick a crime issue (e.g. drug possession). Explain how federalism either fosters or hinders progress on this issue. That is, how does the division of power between the states and federal government create or solve problems (or both)?
See the box on p. 64 of the textbook. Would you favor or oppose a new constitutional convention? Explain.
See the box on pp. 94-95 of the textbook. Pick one state government (information here) and explain what major action it has recently taken on illegal immigration. What should it do?
See the box on pp. 128-129 of the textbook. Do you believe that the government should encourage or discourage dual citizenship? Explain.

Whichever essay you choose, do research to document your claims. Do not write from the top of your head.

You may find links to many relevant stories at www.bessettepitney.net)

Essays should be typed, stapled, double-spaced, and no more than four pages long. I will not read past the fourth page.

Put your name on a cover sheet. Do not identify yourself on the text pages.

Cite your sources with endnotes, which should be in a standard style (e.g., Turabian or Chicago Manual of Style). Endnote pages do not count against the page limit.

Watch your spelling, grammar, diction, and punctuation. Errors will count against you.

Return essays by the start of class, Wednesday, February 15. Late essays will drop a gradepoint for one day's lateness, a letter grade after that. I will grant no extensions except for illness or emergency.

On the election of Senators

2012-01-31T20:25:00.000-08:00

Article 3, Section II of the Constitution says that each State legislature is in charge of choosing its federal Senators. One rationale for this is provided in Federalist #9, which claims that it makes the states "constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate." The 17th Amendment reversed this, however, making Senators subject to a direct popular vote.

Why was the 17th Amendment passed? What might the Founding Fathers say about it? How were the politics of the Senate changed as a result of it?

Colbert w/Laurence Tribe on the Constitution

2012-01-31T15:32:00.000-08:00

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Definitely relevant to recent class discussion on the Constitution. Besides the "beer before liquor" clause (Amendment LXIX, I believe), I'd have to agree my favorite aspect of the Constitution is the artful way in which the Framers left loose ends, e.g. (per Laurence Tribe's mentioning) in the IX amendment-- not to mention the various ambiguous wordings throughout the document. This extra care that the Framers took added so much vitality to the Constitution as a functioning document. The Constitution was not a written to serve as a jumping-off point to be filed away as "archaic"-- the Framers meant for it to stick around for a while, as it has.

The Constitution

2012-01-30T12:49:00.001-08:00

The Articles of Confederation.

The map

The Constitution.

The Great Compromise:

Read these provisions from an actual constitution. How would you appraise them?

ARTICLE 118. Citizens have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance with its quantity and quality. ...

ARTICLE 119. Citizens have the right to rest and leisure. The right to rest and leisure is ensured by the reduction of the working day to seven hours for the overwhelming majority of the workers, the institution of annual vacations with full pay for workers and employees and the provision of a wide network of sanatoria, rest homes and clubs for the accommodation of the working people.

ARTICLE 120. Citizens have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. This right is ensured by the extensive development of social insurance of workers and employees at state expense, free medical service for the working people and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the use of the working people.

ARTICLE 121. Citizens have the right to education. This right is ensured by universal, compulsory elementary education; by education, including higher education, being free of charge; by the system of state stipends for the overwhelming majority of students in the universities and colleges; by instruction in schools being conducted in the native language...

ARTICLE 122. Women are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life. The possibility of exercising these rights is ensured to women by granting them an equal right with men to work, payment for work, rest and leisure, social insurance and education, and by state protection of the interests of mother and child, prematernity and maternity leave with full pay, and the provision of a wide network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens.

ARTICLE 123. Equality of rights of citizens irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life, is an indefeasible law. Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, any establishment of direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or
nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law.

ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church. ...

ARTICLE 128. The inviolability of the homes of citizens and privacy of correspondence are protected by law.

Contrast the US Constitution with the Confederate Constitution.

Declaration, Deliberation, Democracy, and Citizenship

2012-01-25T12:46:00.001-08:00

Deliberation

What does it mean to reason on the merits?
How does deliberation differ from bargaining?

Democracy: the people rule themselves

Who are the people?
Limited government v. unlimited scope of power: "everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." Cows and Isms

Citizenship

What is civic virtue?

The Declaration and the American Political Order

2012-01-23T12:40:00.001-08:00

The Declaration (hyperlink versions)

Lincoln-Douglas Galesburg debate (forward to 1:01:30)

From the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens:

The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Deleted Paragraph:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidels powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. He has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Comedy Central Explains It All

2012-01-18T13:01:00.001-08:00

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

King and American Politics

2011-08-31T12:27:00.000-07:00

Martin Luther King "I Have a Dream" -

Obama Attacks Execs Involved in Oil Spill

2010-05-14T23:37:00.000-07:00

President Obama has been attacking the executives of the companies--British Petroleum, Transocean, and Halliburton--involved in the massive oil spill just off of the coast of Louisiana Reuters reported today.

The open question is whether or not the protracted effects of the oil spill will damper public support for Obama's plan to open up much of the Eastern Seaboard and parts of Alaska to oil exploration and drilling for the first time.

The Department of the Interior has suspended giving out new drilling permits until May 28, when a safety review is due to be completed.

All the companies have tried to shift the blame, which may be worse press than just trying to accept responsibility. It seems to me that after hearing other big businesses mess up recently--notably financial services businesses--the oil firms and subcontractors would want to be careful to strike a more conciliatory and repentant tone. Alas, they have not. If their reaction to the crisis hurts public opinion of increased offshore drilling to the point that lawmakers postpone opening the new waters, they will have themselves to blame. In this environment where the American public trusts big corporations only a little more than they trust their unpopular government, honesty is probably the best policy. Too bad big oil hasn't learned its lesson.

Protests, Baseball, and the Arizona Immigration Law

2010-05-14T21:55:00.000-07:00

I'm surprised to hear that the Arizona boycott is actually gaining force – as my understanding, which is the same as the textbook's – is that most boycotts and other large-scale protests end up swept under the rug or directed to the "sit-in room" because much of the protest machine is, much of the time, fabricated and insincere.

According to a May 14 blog post on the NY Times website, the "Arizona Republic is reporting today that Gov. Jan Brewer and tourism-industry leaders are so worried about the loss in convention and tourism business that they are setting up a task force, funded by $250,000 from the state’s commerce department, to counter what they say is “misinformation’’ about the new law."

And just to illustrate how far the issue has gone, my dad mentioned tonight that he read the MLB players union strongly opposes SB1070, and that many players, particularly those of Latin origin, have promised to boycott the 2011 All-Star Game if it's held in Arizona.

This is what finally got my attention. This is proving to be a very costly 'misunderstanding' that's forever branded the state's image in the eyes of most people, and isn't as much a policy issue as it is a P.R. issue.

Tightening Up the Legal System by Matt Hollander

2010-05-14T11:18:00.000-07:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100504/ap_on_go_co/us_too_many_crimes

There is a peculiar media exchange occurring between Congress and criminal defense lawyers. The charge is that congress is enacting laws that are not clearly defined. The controversy has focused on provisions, or rather the lack there of, for crimes relating to “criminal intent.” This qualification is important in defining defendants who intentionally broke the law from those who make unfortunate mistakes. In a practical scenario, these are the provisions that separate manslaughter from homicide. The difference is not just legal terminology, but significant punishments. The interpretation of intent can mean the difference in decades of jail time.

The criminal defense lawyers say that these laws are unfair to the defendants. The vagueness of these provisions creates situations where people can be prosecuted for crimes that they were unaware of. The lawyers have collectively requested a review of many recently enacted laws, and every practical, as well as constitutional, argument support proper adjustments.

On a fundamental level, the authors of the Bill of Rights had this scenario in mind when they crafted the sixth amendment. It was very important to distance the nation from tyrannical rule, and one such method was to ensure rights to the accused. It is established that the government can neither illegalize an act, nor increase due punishment, after the act has been committed. The ambiguity the referenced provisions essentially make this injustice possible.

Matt Hollander

To have your cake and eat it too: American polls on Illegal Immigration by Matt Hollander

2010-05-14T11:14:00.000-07:00

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-03-immigration-poll_N.htm

In a recent USA Today poll on illegal immigration, two-thirds of Americans want the government to do a better job of securing boarders, but they are sympathetic to illegal immigrants who have been solid contributors to the economy. While, this seems like a reasonable position, the ideologies are conflicting and produce a classic case of “wanting your cake and eating it to.” A topic that is as politically and racially charged as illegal immigration elicits the full range of feelings, often ones that contradict each other. The issue of illegal immigration raises the logical dilemma of breaking laws, and the emotional dilemma of enforcing that law through deportation.

So if the people of this country are so inconsistent on the issue, how are legislators supposed to address this issue? The mixed signal has many lawmakers at a standstill. Illegal immigration is one of the most prevalent issues and seemingly no one knows how to proceed. Legislators would be remiss to not confront this problem with a logical solution. The fact of the matter is that no matter what, the plan will cost an exorbitant amount of money to enact. Americans need to make a stand and be prepared to pay the price for their wishes.

Matt Hollander

Obama's Drug Policy

2010-05-14T00:19:00.000-07:00

After repeated delay, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy released its first National Drug Control Strategy earlier this week. In a Ma y 14 article in The New Republic, UChicago professor and substance-abuse expert Harold Pollack (who also happens to be Stephen Hawking's dopplegänger) dissects Obama's drug strategy, weighing in on its pros and cons.

What did the Obama administration overlook? Pollack states that the strategy is too focused on fighting drug suppliers, which really won't go anywhere. Pollack argues that money would be better spent in prevention programs, which could actually yield results. Pollack also says that the Obama administration should have focused on other addictive substances, such as alcohol and tobacco, as these "continue to undermine public health" (is he suggesting prohibition-type legislation?)

So what's the Obama administration doing differently? What is it doing right? Pollack argues that both the evolved attitude towards drugs and the focus of the strategy are huge improvements. Obama's strategy, while still focusing on the prevention of simple drug use, will focus more on the prevention of "more explicitly harmful consequences: deaths, illness, and injuries associated with drug use." Obama's strategy also focuses on "[integrating] addiction services with general medical care," and will provide financing for addiction treatment. Additionally, Obama's policy will deal "more diplomatically and effectively" with drugs abroad (including Central and South American countries).

Financial Reform

2010-05-06T17:16:00.001-07:00

Very few are happy with large banks and the Federal reserve at the moment. With bailout after bailout for banks, and literally trillions of unaccounted dollars within the fed, it is no wonder why the people want change. It started with Congressman Ron Paul of Texas proposing a bill to audit the Fed and making it accountable for its missing funds. However, he lacked enough support to make progress and the bill died.However, the idea has rekindled; Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed a bill that would audit the fed, and the bill is receiving much greater support from both sides than before. In addition, a second bill to break up large banks into smaller more efficient ones made its way to the floor with great support as well. With these bills, the proposers hope to limit the secret deals and lending that the Fed more than likely has been making and also stop banks from becoming welfare moochers.

Economic and Foreign Policy

2010-05-05T11:35:00.000-07:00

Impact of health bill

Foreign holdings of US debt

National Defense Spending

...............Nominal $...%Outlays....%GDP

1960 $48b............52%.............9.3%

2010 $719b..........19%.............4.9%

Obama's Deal

2010-05-05T11:19:00.000-07:00

This course focused on the political process and its endgame: public policy. A few weeks ago, I found a program that illustrates this process - start to finish - better than almost anything else. It's a FRONTLINE documentary called "Obama's Deal" about the administration's healthcare overhaul.

The video is very interesting. It reveals details of the process that would usually not be available to DC outsiders. In just an hour-long show, it covers a year-long process - and does a pretty good job.

Benefits to New Media

2010-05-05T11:10:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post has announced that it is planning on selling Newsweek due to continuous declines in sales since 2007. This article cites falling newstand and circulation. However, we know that newstand and circulation is falling for all forms of print media. This brings up the "problem" of the new media, but spokesmen from the publication said in a Newsweek article that they want to grow and adapt to their market. The industry is evolving, and Newsweek, as well as other forms of honest journalism that are being replaced with blogs and such, can only survive if they adapt. According to the Newsweek article, the challenges presented by the decline in sales have forced them to improve their quality. So, while we can expect the quantity of "old-fashioned" honest journalism to decline with the growth of blogs and fast-info news sources, the ones that stick around will have to be even higher quality than before.

Question of Impartiality of the Courts

2010-05-05T10:42:00.000-07:00

Charles Dean Hood is waiting on death row after being convicted of killing two people in Plano, Texas. The verdict and condemning punishment makes the nature of his trial more questionable. The prosecutor (who also served as Collin County's District Attorney), Tom O'Connell, and Judge, Verla Sue Holland, of the trial had a past sexual relationship and are still close friends, making the trial lose its credibility and impartiality. Hood and his legal team have not been able to get a new trial in the Texas court system, and the Supreme Court recently declined to reconsider the case.

This story brings the Constitutional right to a fair trial into question. Our court system is supposed to allow a fair trial, but the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution only calls for the impartiality of the jury. The Judge Verla Sue Holland got her position through an election, and her values and judgement were scrutinized by the populace. With her position, the people decided that she had the values that would uphold the Constitutional right for those involved in her court. But her relationship with the District Attorney clearly made the courtroom impartial. As the director of The Texas Defender Service, Andrea Keilen, said of the case, "'No one should be prosecuted for a parking ticket, let alone for capital murder by the district attorney who has had a sexual affair with the judge handling the case."

This story shows that while our Constitution and our court systems are made to give the accused a fair trial, there are still shortcomings in the system that are not protected by the Constitution or popular elections.

US, China, and Taiwan

2010-05-05T01:38:00.001-07:00

A lot of us have probably heard that China may surpass the United States in becoming the next superpower of the world due to its rapid economic growth etc. My question is whether these two countries will ever clash in some way? Some suspect that if they do, it would be about Taiwan. The United States has always maintained a very ambiguous policy towards Taiwan: it does not officially recognize Taiwan but sells arms to it to guard itself against enemies, which would obviously be China. The United States had a weapons deal worth 6.4 billion dollars with Taiwan earlier this year, which infuriated China. With its "One China" policy, China considers Taiwan as a part of China and will supposedly resort to military measures if Taiwan formally declares independence. At the same time, the United States seems to support Taiwan in that it will help Taiwan if China invades the country in the future. So, the United States doesn't seem to want China to take over Taiwan, but at the same time, it officially supports China's policy. So, what happens if Taiwan does declare independence? Will the United States come to Taiwan's defense? Will it be willing to engage in a war with China?

The Death Penalty

2010-05-05T00:57:00.000-07:00

Lately, capital punishment has caught my attention because it is now a heated debate in Taiwan. After nearly five years of not executing anyone, the Ministry of Justice suddenly carried out the execution of four inmates that were sentenced to death, which shocked the entire country. Taiwan never officially abolished the death penalty, and although people have been sentenced to death before, it hasn't been carried out, so people generally think that it is just a kind of formality.

The interesting thing is that the general public in Taiwan supports capital punishment. Unlike the United States where people are split regarding this issue, the majority of people in Taiwan see capital punishment as something rather ordinary and compulsory. A specific example occurred when the former Minister of Justice resigned because of public pressure when she publicly announced her support for the abolition of the death penalty. In a way, instead of generating support of the abolition, she actually facilitated the renewal of the executions.

Unlike the United States where the death penalty lies within the state jurisdiction, it is in the hands of the federal government in Taiwan. Speaking of this, I was surprised when I first learned that the United States was one of the top countries that carry out executions, and even more puzzled when I learned that only certain states do so. I guess that is a perfect example of how federalism works in the United States.

2010-05-05T00:47:00.000-07:00

Since its conception, the Internet has been tax free and open to everybody. If you buy access to the Internet through an Internet Service Provider, you may visit any site you wish at any time. All data that is sent or received is mandated by the FCC to be delivered on a first come, first serve basis to its intended recipient in order to promote an open and interconnected flow of information, unregulated by the cable companies that provide it. Corporations such as Verison, AT&T, and Comcast are fighting to gain control of the information that they distribute. By abolishing the mandates of net neutrality, corporations could control what content is seen first and which pages load fastest. Larger sites could pay for preferential treatment of their data, defeating the equal treatment of information that allows any user to visit any site he desires. Without net neutrality, phone companies could create virtual profiling checkpoints on the internet, controlling traffic in a way that prevents the free and easy exchange of ideas.

So much of the internet’s success developed through the ability to freely share information across sites and country borders. The internet’s speed and ease of access give it the power to spread aid in a time of crisis. It can sometimes reveal social injustice in countries that lack other pervasive communication networks. If phone and cable corporations continue to score legal victories against the FCC, the internet as we know it will disappear. Companies like Verison, AT&T, and Comcast will have the right to slow down or block certain information, potentially hindering humanitarian causes that rely on the efficient and all-encompassing network the internet provides. While we cannot be sure how these companies will proceed, some companies have already limited peer-to-peer connectivity, with plans to institute cell-phone like charges to access popular sites. The Obama administration’s stance on net neutrality will influence the struggle between the FCC and phone and cable companies and decide whether the internet will continue to exist as an open and interconnected network.

Federalism and Education

2010-05-04T21:18:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the New York Times came out with an article profiling Arne Duncan, the U.S. Secretary of Education. Previous secretaries have tended to stay out of the public focus, as state and local governments are largely responsible for the programs and funding given to schools. Arne Duncan is seeking to expand the role of the federal government in local schools. His "assertive" measures include a $4 billion school improvement competition and $3.5 billion to help failing schools. Congress doubled the Department of Education's budget last year in emergency education funding, giving Duncan far more resources than his predecessors had. Although there is a proposal to change the No Child Left Behind Act to give schools more flexibility, most of Duncan's efforts promote federal involvement in schooling.

Even though the budget for the Department of Education has doubled, it still accounts for very little of the overall budget on local education. The New York Times notes that "in recent decades, states and districts have paid more than 90 cents of every dollar spent on public schools." Some critics of the Department of Education's increased role have pointed out that the federal government is attempting to get more leverage in an area where they provide little of the funding. Such tensions in who should control and ultimately be responsible for social programs reflect the occasional challenges presented by our federal system. Education has traditionally been a state and local issue - while it is admirable that Duncan desires to improve our current education system, it is also understandable that local and state officials might resent increased regulations when they are the ones ultimately footing most of the bill.

One Jerk Might Ruin Our Fun

2010-05-04T17:08:00.000-07:00

The recent car bombing scare in New York City has proven devastating for the nation. It is alleged that the act was done by one man and that there is no conspiracy. Representative Peter King has suggested that the bombing was caused by South Park and its recent episode in which it originally slandered the prophet Mohamed. After several threats, any reference to him in the episode was censored. Scenes where he was supposed to be on screen had a large black rectangle labeled 'censored'. The South Park creators still virtually got the image across, censorship or not.

If this in truth why the bombing occurred, then everyone needs to understand that South Park attacks everything. Every major religion had some under their ridicule at some point, among other things. One of their most notable almost-lawsuits was their episode criticizing the Whale Wars cast, specifically the leader of the project Paul Watson.

This picture was shown on TV as he was being personally slandered. South Park does not discriminate with what to attack; they go after anything, and this is why everyone loves the show.

Besides this, if the bombing is concluded to have been caused of South Park's depiction of Mohamed, we can only expect one thing, more censorship. South Park is free to poke fun at whomever they desire because no one can get insulted by their humor. If they did, they would find their careers being troubled. This is true among politicians and any public figures, the only way to avoid injury of words is to not react to them. FDR understood this in his early years campaigning for the presidency. His opponents would create absurd lies to slander him, and he would ignore them completely. Nothing much came of it. Now, because there may have been a violent recoil, the situation is different.

Censorship is counter-productive in a free society, which should encourage different opinions not the same. Censorship will only dull the message artists attempt to present. For South Park and like shows, this means they will have to be more careful about what they slander. We love these shows because of the over-the-top absurdity and their brave attacks on almost anyone. Their quality will only decrease if they are subject to greater censorship. Finally, the concept of American liberty becomes restrained as well. America is supposed to be the one country where one can speak their mind without fear of repercussions.

South Park had already faced some degree of censorship in the show. If the investigators of the bombing conclude that it was in fact the depiction of Mohamed that instigated the bomber, there will no doubt be tighter restrictions on what comedians can show to the public. For the South Park creators this means either more lawsuits or much worse content, ruining the fun for all of us. However, Representative King closed claiming the South Park theory is "one in a hundred". Hopefully, for the sake of artists, comedy, and liberty it is false.

Times Square Car Bomb linked to South Park

2010-05-04T16:53:00.000-07:00

Last Saturday night, a car bomb was found in Times Square. Fortunately, although the device had apparently begun to detonate, it failed to explode. Representative Peter T. King, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Homeland Security suggested that the car bomb could be linked to the controversial 'South Park' episode. The episode in question included a caricature of the prophet Muhammad dressed in a bear suit and spurred Islamic radical group Revolution Muslim to threaten the 'South Park' creators. A post on RevolutionMuslim.com declared, "We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably end up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will happen to them" (foxnews.com). The car bomb itself was found nearby Viacom headquarters , the conglomerate that owns Comedy Central, on which South Park is aired.

A Double Standard

2010-05-04T16:11:00.000-07:00

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faced off at the UN Conference on Monday over the subject of nuclear proliferation. Clinton began, as you would expect, by accusing Iran of evading nuclear safeguard obligations and by calling on Iran to "fulfill our international obligations and work toward the goal of a safer world" (CNN.com). Ahmadinejad countered by denying allegations that Iran's nuclear program is focused on creating nuclear weapons and accusing the United States of promoting an "international system that... favored the West and nuclear weapon states while denying states like his the benefits of nuclear energy" (CNN.com). Ahmadinejad went on to argue that the U.S. held a double standard by denying states like Iran the right to hold nuclear weapons, while at the same time Israel continues to receive U.S. support despite their own undeclared nuclear stockpile. While the thought of Ahmadinejad getting his hands on a nuclear bomb does keeps me up at night, I can't help but feel that in some respect he is right. It is incredibly hypocritical of the U.S. to try and regulate how other countries develop their own nuclear power, while we are not only the world's largest distributor of commercial nuclear energy, but we are also currently sitting on a stockpile of over 5,000 nuclear missiles. This seems to be just another example of America policing the world and trying to push forward our own agenda. On that note, as a U.S. citizen, I am much more comfortable knowing that the U.S. will do whatever it can to stop countries like Iran and North Korea from attaining nuclear weapons. At the same time I can take advantage of the 19.6% of our total electricity consumption that is provided by nuclear energy.

Practice Final Exam

2010-05-04T13:34:00.000-07:00

I. Identifications. Explain the meaning and significance of 12 of the 15 following items (4 points each). Each answer should be a brief paragraph. What is fair game for an identification?

Items that we have discussed in class or on the blog;
Items that appear in bold or italics in the readings;
Items that cover several pages in the readings.

National Security Act of 1947
Progressive taxes
Stare decisis
Federal Register
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
Cloture
Embedded journalist
Superdelegates
Exclusionary rule
AmeriCorps
Unfunded mandate
Bill of attainder
Medicaid
Party identification
Thirteenth Amendment

II. Short answers. Answer 3 of 4 (6 points each). Each answer should be a brief paragraph.

1. Explain the difference between unilateralism and multilateralism in foreign policy.

2. Briefly explain: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.”

3. Briefly explain: “Our written laws are often hard to understand, but everyone can read them, whereas nothing could be more obscure and out of research of the common man than a law founded on precedent.”

4. What has happened to the newspaper industry in recent years? How might the trend affect deliberative democracy?

III. General Essays. Answer 2 of 3 (17 points each). Each answer should take 3-4 small bluebook pages.

1. How can federalism foster deliberation and active citizenship?

2. The unemployment rate is 9.7 percent. Is the president responsible? In your answer, consider the structure of federal economic policymaking.

3. See the article at http://www.wilsoncountynews.com/article.php?id=27305&n=tead-off-americans-national-day-of-pray-gets-wrong-court-decision. Explain how it illustrates basic features of the nation’s civic culture and constitutional structure. Does it get anything wrong?

IV. Bonus questions (one point each) Very briefly identify the following:

Annette Polly Williams
Christine Todd Whitman
Henry Waxman
Byron White
Sienna Wooten

California Budget Cuts

2010-05-03T12:47:00.000-07:00

Acalanes Blueprint

I went to a public California high school in the East Bay in northern California. During my senior year, state budget cuts hit the public education system. Every teacher and every program was in the line of fire, and the situation is getting worse every year. Therefore, parcel tax measures have recently been a huge part of local politics.

One might blame the government for mishandling tax revenue, but as the most recent article in the student newspaper, the Blueprint, points out, others claim the problem is that “the teachers’ union…owns the state legislature” (see article). The California teachers’ union is a political powerhouse, and it has fought long and hard for decreased classroom size. This brings up the debate over which is more important: keeping teachers in their jobs and keeping class sizes down or continuing to fund more student programs. Personally, if I had the option of sitting on the floor all day in classes with 40 people or having my student newspaper cut, I’d choose sitting on the floor. I think every student at my school would do the same for their student organization, or to keep the opportunity to take AP courses.

How people feel about the parcel tax measures has a lot to do with the “feel-good” aspect of wanting everyone to contribute to the education of the "future of America". Therefore, those who oppose the parcel tax get a bad reputation for being greedy and selfish when really, they have the same interests at heart. As more free-market oriented, anti-regulatory voters, their stance stems from less faith in the ability of local level (and probably all levels of) government bureaucracy to handle something as important and serious as a crisis in the education system. They also have a different basic concept of how the economy functions in the long run. They call for temporary difficulty in favor of long-term gain, saying that, instead of tax increases that may erode the tax base and reduce tax revenue, we should encourage private fundraising by those whose interests are most invested in the education system.

Economic Policy

2010-05-03T12:17:00.000-07:00

Power Point slides

Medicare actuary report on the health bill

Sources of information

Our future:

Obama at WHCD

2010-05-03T09:26:00.000-07:00

While President Obama reminds us of his speaking skill during every speech and official speaking appearance, I had forgotten about his ability to remain well liked in almost any social situation. Whereas President Bush seemed decidedly uncomfortable at this White House Correspondents' Association dinner, Obama was in control throughout the entirety of his speech and, as reported by Politico, even topped Jay Leno's performance in terms of comedy. In his short speech preceding Jay Leno's spot, Obama demonstrated a welcome ability to laugh at himself, Biden, and the rest of his staff.

Some of the best lines included:

"I work a lot so I wasn't sure that I should actually come tonight. Biden talked me into it. He leaned over and he said, 'Mr. President, this is no ordinary dinner. This is a big "f**king meal!"

"Unfortunately John McCain couldn't make it. Recently he claimed that he had never identified himself as a maverick, and we all know what happens in Arizona when you don't have I.D."

By the end of the night, Obama had completely outdone Jay Leno (not that difficult an achievement), who had decided to play it safe with his routine. Although I can appreciate a President with a sense of humor, Politico aptly points out that Obama might not have attended the event and chosen to focus on the recent BP oil spill instead. Such action might have been more appropriate, but, for better or worse, Obama is a president who enjoys and excels in the limelight. I doubt he could have passed an opportunity like this up.

Are we Safe?

2010-05-03T00:03:00.000-07:00

This Saturday around 6:28pm, a Nissan Pathfinder S.U.V. was found in the center of Times Square containing simple alarm clocks attached to gasoline pipes, propane, firecrackers and fertilizer. Less than a few minutes of having parked on West 45^th Street, a nearby vendor observed smoke coming out of the SUV and notified a police officer. The bomb squad appeared a few minutes later and successfully detonated it, leaving investigators to pour through hours of surveillance footage to find suspects. The bomb was reported to be a very simple one that would have set off a “fireball”, killing several civilians and tear the car to pieces but would not be able to demolish buildings. The New York Times reported that there are many theories floating as to why this bomb was planted. A video of the Al-Qaeda was found on YouTube claiming that they were responsible for the attack. However, terrorist analysts are skeptical and believe that this may be a propaganda stunt rather than the real deal. There has also been speculation about it being an attempt to bomb the Viacom building. Viacom owns the sitcom South Park which recently depicted the prophet Mohammad in a negative light. Since then the company has received many threats from Islamist groups. With these events occurring in broad day light we need to ask are we safe? What more can the government do to make events like this not occur? This time we got lucky that the car was parked in a central location and that the vendors were able to spot the smoke coming out. The Obama administration is now working hard trying to find the criminals behind this event and how to prevent it from occurring again.

Cost-control measures in the health care law

2010-05-02T19:21:00.000-07:00

In class on Wednesday, we talked about the recently enacted health care law and touched on its immediate impact on health care spending in the United States. Per that discussion, I wanted to break down a few of the features of the bill that we didn’t touch on but have the potential to fundamentally reshape our health insurance system and “bend the curve” of growing health costs.

The exchanges

The law requires each state to set up a health insurance “exchange”—a health insurance marketplace, accessed online, in which insurance companies have to list their plans in clear detail for consumers to compare on the merits of quality and price. All plans sold in the exchange will have to meet minimum standards of coverage. In today’s insurance market, most consumers don’t know which coverage is best and how much it should cost, except for really sick people who spend time researching this kind of stuff. In the exchange, the relative quality of plans will be clearly indicated through both government and consumer ratings; in this transparent market, the economics of competition will work naturally to improve quality and reduce prices. At first, the exchanges will be open only to individuals and small businesses; in 2018, states will have the option of banding their exchanges together with those of other states, and allowing larger businesses to buy insurance on the exchanges. If this happens, we may see the kind of system-wide cost reduction we need.

The excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans

Though highly unpopular, this is the law’s most direct incentive for cost control. Basically, in 2018, a 40% tax will be applied on every dollar over $27,500 spent on a health insurance plan. This threshold will increase with inflation, which is slower than health care cost growth; unless costs start growing more slowly, more plans will fall under the tax. The ultimate goal is not to have employers pay the tax; the goal is for them to avoid paying the tax by choosing plans for their employees that cost less money. This, consequently, gives insurers who charge less a competitive advantage against those charging more.

The Medicare Commission

Right now, Congress has authority over Medicare payment rates and spending targets. The recently enacted law creates the Independent Medicare Advisory Commission, a 15-member board of experts appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The commission is empowered to bring Medicare in line with certain spending targets and institute reforms in Medicare to make meeting those targets easier. The key is that their recommendations are not subject to amendment by Congress; after they are made, the recommendations must be explicitly rejected, as a package, by both houses of Congress within a certain amount of time before they take effect. Congress hates to implement changes to Medicare that might hurt those who benefit from the current system; the commission solves this political problem. Most importantly, the commission can use Medicare to experiment with reforms in payment and delivery systems that, if they work, could be emulated system-wide.

The bundling of Medicare payments

With a few pockets of exception, our health care system currently operates under a “fee-for-service” model, in which doctors get paid more for every consultation, test, procedure, or prescription they order. And consumers do not want to second-guess the recommendations of medical professionals, no matter how skewed their incentives. A good explanation of the perils of this system is found in Atul Gawande’s article in The New Yorker from last June. You should be able to find it on Google.

Under the new law, instead of getting paid for each treatment and test, hospitals serving Medicare patients will receive a single fee for treating all of a patient’s ailments over a given period of time. This will give incentive for doctors to communicate with patients and other doctors, and provide a disincentive to order tests and procedures that might not be necessary. It could be the beginning of Americans paying for the quality of their health care rather than the quantity of their health care.

Arizona's Bad Timing

2010-05-01T12:28:00.000-07:00

The U.S. state of Arizona recently passed a bill with the intent to crack down in a big way on illegal immigration. This bill makes it illegal to be in the state if you are not a U.S. citizen, allows for law enforcement officials to go up to anyone on the street and ask for U.S. identification, and lets Arizona citizens sue the police department of the state if they do not feel they are doing their job in catching and sending back illegal immigrants. This can and will most likely lead to racial profiling by law enforcement officials in checking ids, due to Arizona's shared border with Mexico. The Roman Catholic cardinal in Los Angeles has criticized this bill as nearing Nazism. Many Americans think that Mexico is the problem neighbor of America, whose people are crashing their party. In some ways this is true. Mexico is in the middle of a large conflict against their many drug cartels. Over 20,000 people have died in Mexico due to this conflict. The War on Drugs in Mexico has proven to be very different than the one in the U.S. Barack Obama and Felipe Calderon have been working closely because this crackdown on Mexico's drug cartels is of great interest to the U.S. Mexican cartels are responsible for an estimated 70% of the drugs that enter this country. The recently named most dangerous city in the world, Juarez, sits just across our border of Texas and New Mexico. This time, more than ever, calls for the U.S. and Mexico to work as closely as ever to help prevent the violence from continuing in Mexico, as well as spreading across our borders which is a strong possibility. Our government has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to Mexico to help with military supplies as well as intelligence and troop training. The Merida Initiative is a joint security cooperation between Mexico, the U.S., and other Central American countries to help combat cartels and drugs. Arizona has chosen a poor time to pass the bill. President Calderon has openly stated his outrage over the bill, saying, "(the bill) opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement. Nobody can sit around with their arms crossed in the face of decisions that so clearly affect our countrymen" He is right. Mexico's state of Sonora which borders Arizona has pulled out of its annual Sonora-Arizona Commission, a cooperation meeting that has been held between the two states for over four decades. Mexico accounts for close to two-thirds of Arizona's exports. This will be no longer. Many expect the U.S. - Mexico relationship to deteriorate at a time where it must be especially strong for the safety of North America.

This bill by Arizona, constitutional or unconstitutional, has come at the worst time. It will cause the economy of Arizona to deteriorate in the middle of the recession which is starting to get better. It will hurt the relationship between our two countries when we need to be strong and focus our efforts on helping Mexico break up their drug cartels, decrease their violence, and keep drugs off our streets.

They Are Watching You!

2010-04-28T22:11:00.000-07:00

As a now terrified member of Facebook, I have no idea who has access to my private pictures, statuses, messages, and personal information. In class, Professor Pitney told those of us with Facebook accounts to exercise caution when using the social networking site, as we can be tracked down by potential employers or others. It concerns me that the pictures and information we post on Facebook can jeopardize our employment, but I am more worried about how Facebook now keeps our information as a "permanent record." That's right, even into your eighties, Facebook could keep pictures of you "raging" at TNC. Furthermore, we don't even know who else has access to our personal information now that Facebook has begun to give users' personal information out to third-party websites. Third-party websites supposedly just look at a Facebook user's profile information in an attempt to personalize the online experience, but if Facebook gives this information to websites, who else could Facebook have given the information? While it doesn't bother me if my online experience is personalized, I certainly don't want to be judged in the future based on pictures of my actions in college, and I know that I am not the only one. Four democratic senators have asked Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg to change privacy settings on the website, but he hasn't done anything to fulfill the request. One of their objections to the privacy settings is that users must opt-out of sharing information with other sites, and the steps to opt-out are complicated. So with Google, Amazon, and Facebook all keeping watch over user activity, we all have good reason to be paranoid.

Domestic Policy

2010-04-28T12:31:00.000-07:00

Health

Vaccine court

Social Welfare

Education

Gov 20 Students in the Press!

2010-04-28T11:55:00.000-07:00

Anna Joseph on distracted driving.

Robert Daily on No Child Left Behind.

Sara Stern on Pell Grants.

The California Teacher's Association

2010-04-28T01:09:00.000-07:00

The CTA
Although the Op-Ed I wrote praised all my former teachers, I can hardly call the teaching system they work in perfect. Teacher’s unions are one of the main deterrents in education. They hurt students and teachers from reaching their potential.

As the Economist points out, the California Teacher’s Association is one of the most powerful unions in the great state of California. They are also the biggest lobbyists in the state, spending $210 million last year alone. With that money, the CTA advocates for lower educational standards, less school voucher programs, and entry tests for teachers that are “laughably easy.” These revelations were hardly a surprise, but they still annoy me. California used to be the best example for effective secondary education. Now it is the worst.

But the CTA does not help all teachers. The Govenator recently proposed a bill that changes the way teachers are laid off. This bill would replace the seniority rule and instead fire teachers based on their effectiveness in the classroom. Obviously, the CTA hates this. They do not want to help the young passionate teacher who wants to make a difference. They want to help the mediocre teacher who has taught longer and given more union dues.

The bureaucracy in California’s education makes it impossible to give blame to one group for the decrease in California’s education. However, the CTA is definitely not helping.

Simplification of the Tax Code

2010-04-27T21:49:00.000-07:00

While Tea Party activists have gotten lots of media coverage as they voiced their dismay over government spending and taxes, another group, the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate, worried over taxes headed by Nina Olson has remained relatively silent.

Implemented by Congress in 1996, this watchdog service has sought to simplify the tax code. An article in the Economist last week highlights their unheard plight. I found these statistics shocking:

“Americans now spend 7.6 billion hours a year grappling with an incomprehensible tangle of deductions, loopholes and arcane reporting requirements. That is the equivalent of 3.8 million skilled workers toiling full-time, year-round, just to handle the paperwork. By this measure the tax-compliance industry is six times larger than car-making.”

Think of all of this wasted time! This would be the equivalent of the entire nation of Palestine working only on American tax forms (assuming they are all skilled laborers).

The process is so convoluted and complex, that 82% of Americans pay for help, whether through a tax software program or accountant. I understand that additions are made to the tax code for a certain special interest group, but there must be some sort of way to filter the ever growing provisions to the tax code. The bureaucratic goals are far-reaching and thorough, and groups like the IRS rely solely on citizen response to their inquisitions.

There are loud talks of high unemployment, the levels of government spending, and tax rates, but I think there need to be stronger talks of decreasing American citizens extraneous work for the government, and then having to pay for it.

Is the Dems' Fall Outlook Improving?

2010-04-27T17:42:00.000-07:00

It is amazing how much the sentiment on Democratic prospects have changed since the election of Scott Brown. Then, according to the Boston Globe:

Republicans in Washington and around the country yesterday said Scott Brown’s victorious Senate campaign in Massachusetts is a harbinger of a broader party surge.

Yet since Scott Brown was elected (and some would say because Scott Brown has been elected), healthcare reform has passed. While many aspects of the reform are unpopular, it does at least remove the critique that Democrats did nothing with their majority.

I think there are two other pieces of good news for Democrats: GM is expected to return to profitability, and Goldman Sachs is embroiled in an SEC investigation. Both of these events seem to underscore that big government can be good, or at least, preferable to the alternative. The government's takeover of GM has been highly successful; sales have been rising, and GM repaid their last government loan, although much of the money Uncle Sam loaned GM was in an equity stake, which won't be cashed out until the stock is re-issued, which is unlikely to be profitable.

The Republicans are gearing up to make Elena Kagan, a New York City liberal elite who didn't learn to drive until her 20s, a poster child for how out of touch the Democratic party is with the American people. I'm sure that this election will be messy--and Democrats may loose several seats. It does not, however, seem to be the doomsday it was a few short months ago.

Financial Reform: CDO's

2010-04-27T15:26:00.001-07:00

Some believe that the majority of the blame for the financial crisis falls on irresponsible home-owners who defaulted on their loans. That they were uneducated in believing they could take a sub-prime mortgage and get away with it. First of all, the fine print of some housing loans would baffle most of us, so I doubt that it is a result of being uneducated. Yet some people were living beyond their means in houses they could not afford, true. Nevertheless, the amount of home-owners that got behind on their mortgages last year was 7% as reported in a TIME magazine article titled "One Bad Bond":

"Just 7% of all borrowers are behind on their loans, yet hundreds of billions of dollars of mortgage bonds are nearly worthless."

What is really scary is the Collateralized Debt Obligations, or CDO's, based called Mortgage-backed Securities that were sold amongst banks and investors, leaving the last people in this game of "hot potato" with bonds which account for approximately $8.5 trillion. The total U.S. debt is about $14 trillion and now we have created a new market of Nuclear bonds in which huge bonds like Goldmann Sachs' ABACUS 2007-AC1 and others' Jupiter High-grade V are now worth 0.40 cents on the dollar.

What has become of these risky bets you ask? Remember TARP, yeah the government bought them. And who is to answer? Currently Goldmann Sachs is being investigated for fraud in the creation and sale of ABACUS 2007-AC1, but even if convicted the American people will not get their money back. We can only hope Congress decides to regulate activities like this in the future.

Red Tape à la française

2010-04-26T12:29:00.000-07:00

After reading Chapter 15 on bureaucracy, I was really shocked with how simple (yes, simple) some of the American bureaucratic processes are. Having moved to France which is (arguably) the most bureaucratic country on the planet, I can attest first-hand to the ridiculous and old-fashioned immigration policy.

Before leaving for France, I was required to fill out several visa applications. Not several forms, but several copies of the exact same application. Of course I needed to documents such as my birth certificate - translated in French. With my capacity in French, I could have translated a simple birth certificate myself, but it needed to be official. I paid over $100 for a (poor) but acceptable translation, approved by the notary public. I sent in my passport and application with all supporting documents, but my package was returned a couple of weeks later! Turns out - following a change of policy - I needed my work visa approved in France before obtaining a visa from the Consulate General of France in Los Angeles. Also, due to my proximity to Los Angeles (Phoenix?) I was requested to apply in person. With only a few weeks left before leaving for France, I had to have my employer in France fill out three employment contracts. Due to a shortage of time, she had to forge my signature on all three copies and get an official "stamp" from the French Department of Labor on all forms. She then had to rush a copy to me so that I could include it with my visa application.

With all documents in hand, I drove to Los Angeles only a week before leaving for France. I had to pay about $90 for the processing of my visa, and I was given a temporary three-month visa. I To avoid an illegal or irregular situation in France, I had to go to the police préfecture within my first three months in France.

I will never forget the first time I went to the préfecture in Nice, France. So many immigrants, fighting to get a good place in line. When the police officer opened the gates to the préfecture at 8am, crowds of young Africans began to push women and children to the ground... there was no order, and only the youngest and strongest made it to the front of the line. When I finally got to the window, after waiting 5 hours, my picture was taken, and my visa and passport were examined. I had to pay another hefty fee, and I was given a very flimsy piece of paper - a receipt - to serve as my residency card. I was promised a residency card in a few weeks.

About two months later, I received a letter in the mail. In order to get my official residency card, I had to go to a neighboring city (about 30 miles away) and attend an all-day presentation on what it "means to be French." After the presentation, I had to pay a medical fee, and I had to undergo a health exam. I was told that upon completion of the medical exam, I could simply walk to the préfecture and get my residency card.

The card was never there. I left France a few days later. What a mess!

Bureaucracy

2010-04-26T11:38:00.000-07:00

Public Sector Unions

Largest is AFSCME
Largest federal is AFGE
Others
Political role

Regulation

Organizational Culture and Organizational Complexity

The Citizen's Perspective

SEC surfed porn while economy fell

2010-04-25T13:52:00.000-07:00

In a shocking report, ABC broke news that as the world watched the financial system teeter on the brink of collapse, SEC employees were watching something else: porn. Senior staffers at the Securities and Exchange Commission spent hours surfing pornographic websites on government-issued computers while they were being paid to police Wall Street. And if you think they were all low-level officials, think again. Seventeen of the employees were "at a senior level," earning up to $222,418 a year while spending hours on sites like naughty.com, skankwire, and youporn.

The revelations have (understandably) sparked Congressional outrage. Rep. Darell Issa (CA-R) expressed anger that the SEC "was preoccupied with other distractions" at a time when it was needed most. The event also undermines the credibility of SEC's recently announced lawsuit against Goldman Sachs. What's more, it's a nice comeback to calls for financial reform: why should we give the government more regulatory power if they'll just use it to look at porn?

National Day of Prayer

2010-04-24T21:21:00.000-07:00

The Pentagon recently withdrew their invitation to Franklin Graham to speak at its National Day of Prayer services on May 6. This was in response to complaints from advocacy groups that Graham had made biased shortly after 9/11, calling Islam “evil”. Representatives from the Pentagon said Graham’s presence would be “inappropriate for an inclusive, multi-faith observance.”
This is hypocritical because the National Day of Prayer is not an inclusive tradition. It was established in 1952, strongly lobbied for by Billy Graham, Franklin Graham’s father, and ever since it has been controversial due to the Judeo-Christian language associated with the day, which excludes atheists, agnostics, and polytheists. Yet the government tends to ignore this fact, and this year Obama plans to ignore the decision by Judge Barbara Crabb that it is unconstitutional on the grounds that violates the separation of Church and State. Graham responded to the Pentagon’s decision by saying that he loves the Islamic people, but wants them to find Christ. To me, it seems obvious that every denominational leader speaking at the service believes that the other religions present have gotten it wrong, which is why excluding Graham for using negative language about Muslims (which the American President was also doing at that point in time) seems hypocritical. I think the government and pentagon should stop focusing on how they will celebrate the National Day of Prayer, and abolish it instead.

Truth forever on the Scaffold

2010-04-23T14:32:00.000-07:00

The clip of Johnnie Cochran's final plea with the jury reminded me of something. Johnnie Cochran alludes to a scaffold that always sways the future, and that the throne (the judges and prosecutors) are forever wrong. Very poetic Johnnie, just not original and definitely not applicable to OJ Simpson. I think Johnnie Cochran pawned this "allusion" from a speech Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave titled "We Shall Overcome" in which he cites James Russell Lowell for the actual quote. It is funny to see how quotes have been used for different purposes in every facet of life.

Here is the speech we've already seen of Johnnie Cochran:

Here is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. using it:

And the actual quote from a poem by James Russell Lowell titled "The Present Crisis" (1845):

"Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,- Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow keeping watch above His own"

Congratulations Johnnie Cochran for totally misusing the quote on somebody like OJ Simpson!

Keyboard cat Play Him Off!

Behind the Basic Black: A Brief History of the Judges' Robes

2010-04-21T16:51:00.001-07:00

When I think of a judge, a single article of clothing stands out in my mind. The simple black robe is a marker of the wearer's impartiality, consistency, and transcendence of society's numerous divisions. These are qualities that Americans value in the judiciary; unbiased, pure thought is most reliable when it comes to handling our rights. Thomas Jefferson was among the originators of this trend; many of the Founding Fathers sought to distance the American judiciary from the "needless official appeal" of the aristocratic British judges. The dissent others expressed at the nation's founding resulted in a compromise: the loathed official wigs were banned, though more elaborate robes of office remained permissible. Over time, however, the judicial robe's adornments dwindled until a formal uniform ceased to exist. By the mid-19th century, the simple black robe worn by most judges today became the traditional attire. Still, inconsistencies abound: female judges often accessorize with a frilly white collar, some state Supreme Court judges wear colored sashes, and the justices of Puerto Rico don robes with Spanish-style sleeves. In any case, these robes surely signify what the Founding Fathers wanted the judiciary to embody: authority, duty, and unbiased thought.

Judiciary II

2010-04-21T11:00:00.000-07:00

Juries are wonderfully effective in shaping a nation’s judgment and increasing its natural lights. That, in my view, is [the jury system’s] greatest advantage. It should be regarded as a free school which is always open and in which each juror learns his rights, comes into daily contact with the best-educated and most-enlightened members of the upper classes, and is given practical lessons in the law, lessons which the advocate’s efforts, the judge’s advice, and also the very passions of the litigants bring within his mental grasp. I think that the main reason for the practical intelligence and the political good sense of the Americans is their long experience with juries in civil cases.

C-SPAN documentary on the court (start at 36:40)

Oyez: audio and transcript of oral argument

The current court

Future of news

2010-04-19T12:56:00.000-07:00

As paper media dies its slow death, Internet usage is growing. Hundreds of thousands of users visit social news websites like Digg or Reddit. Members of these sites post links to news stories or articles, and “digg” or ‘upvote’ the links to stories they enjoy. If an article receives enough votes, it moves from the story queue to the main page. Stories are organized by popularity, so stories with more votes are displayed higher on the screen. Social news does not discriminate between news provider and news consumer, allowing constituents to shape the news and react instantly when a story breaks. When Wikileaks released the graphic Apache video, the top Reddit stories were links to the video with headlines that demanded coverage from bigger aggregate sites like CNN and BBC. Sites like Digg and Reddit contain innate incentives to seek out unique or controversial stories, adding a degree of accountability and involvement that normal media lacks. Bank bonuses, scandals, the next iPhone are all examples of links that get voted to the front page. It should be no question of why newspapers are dying off: they lack the personal accountability and feeling of control and customization that an online community provides.

Social media’s ease of access is also its downfall. As the number of members grows, the average quality per submission falls. Some users game the system so their stories reach the main page more quickly or at the expense of others. Other compromising participants spam links to the point where finding an interesting and engaging article becomes a chore. By creating an abundance of articles that advertise at the expense of information, spammers profit from the masses of users who have made the site a part of their news regimen. Before social news sites catch on as a dependable source of news, spam and other malignancies must be fixed. Until then, it will serve as a news supplement for the growing Internet generations.

Judiciary I

2010-04-19T10:50:00.001-07:00

Here is a concise guide to federal statutes.

After Congress passes law, the bureaucracy drafts rules:

Then the courts may act

At the state level:

The system in practice:

"The Lecture" from Anatomy of a Murder (start at 20:00). They show this scene in law schools.

C-SPAN documentary on the court (start at 36:40)

Census Awareness

2010-04-19T09:33:00.000-07:00

Last class we talked a little about different ways the Census could be administrated. This Saturday, an article was posted in the New York Times stating 1 in 3 Americans Failed to Return Census Forms. The states that had the highest participation were Wisconsin with 78% participation and Minnesota with 76%. States that had the lowest participation were New Mexico with 59% and Louisiana with 60%. In bigger cities, areas that were predominantly black and Hispanic had lower participation rates.

According to the article, as of Friday March 16, there was only 68% mail participation. This is a 4% drop as compared to the 2000 census where there was 72% mail participation. With more Americans not filling out the Census, we need to find cost efficient ways to raise awareness and involvement. For those who live in poorer communities and do not send in their forms, the government has issued workers to go door to door. This process, though effective, is very time consuming and costly. We must find different ways to make all residing Americans fill out this form. One idea could be linking the form to jobs. All those individuals who do not fill out the census cannot receive their next pay check. Although this method may be harsh, and hard to execute, it will help Americans realize the importance of filling out the Census. Another idea would be for the government to introduce a penalty. On the cover of the census it clearly states, “By law you are required to fill this form”. If all individuals were made to pay a fine for not filling out the Census, it would increase incentive especially for the low income community.

Sometimes I feel that our prime concern is low income households that fail to return the census. However, we do not to realize that there are many white collared individuals who do not fill out the Census due to a lack of time. If the Census were available online, it would allow easier access to fill out and email back. Something must be done to raise participation whether it is by making the form available online, or fining the public, it will later serve the greater good of the community.

The National Debt

2010-04-17T00:21:00.000-07:00

I.O.U.S.A. – the 30-Minute Version from IOUSA the Movie on Vimeo.

Mitt Romney Comes to CMC

2010-04-16T23:23:00.000-07:00

I went to Ath last night to hear Mitt Romney speak and I wanted to share my thoughts / provide a little summary in case you didn’t go. The Governor's talk was especially relevant to our class and interesting regardless of your political views. Also I think his speech builds perfectly on Brian’s blog post reagarding the problem the deficit is and will continue to become. While his cure for the problem, much smaller government, many of you diagree with he highlighted and continuely stressed that the deficit is the largest problem we currently face. Romney talked about how lately government has been heading the wrong direction to paraphrase him, spending like we have a credit card from China. I believe he is rightfully worried about what happens when these interest payments begin to come due and how taxes will have to rise exponentially in order to support government spending and service the interest payments. This problem is not as simple of a fix as raising taxes. Higher taxes will drive business aborad further decreasing the total taxable income of corporations and individuals in this country. It is important that our generation realizes the problem WE will be faced with and Romney made that point clear numerous times throughout the talk.

Romney went on to talk about how every great nation has fallen in history so far. From the Ottomans to the British, empires have come and gone. The Governor went on to talk about how America in his opinion could easily go down this same road and be surpassed. However he believes America is different and can avoid this fate if its citizens stand up and vote for action and change (Or in my words, fight off the evil government.)

Romney drew on parralles between the USA and some of the most successful corporations (i.e.
Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Walt Disney and Apple) He talked about how these companies all embody the personality of their founders. He used this point to talk about how much influence the founding of an organization can have on its operations and culture forever. He went on to say this needs to be the case with the country as well. It is important for us to return to the founding of America and how the founders did something brand new when they established the government of the United States. They reversed the trend of the government being the royalty and the people being the servants. Instead they founded a nation built on the idea that citizens would have the power (through voting) and that the government would serve them. Romney believes Americans stand up and make the government work for them again.

Romney ended by calling on everyone to get involved and to speak their voice / vote. He joked, "I don't care if you vote Republican or Democrat... wait actually I do care, Vote Republican!"

The question session also proved to be quite insightful as the croud asked Romney to address three big questions.
1) How he would have handled the financial crisis differently than Bush and Obama?
Romney made a ridiculous claim that he hopes he would have seen the housing crisis coming and been able to act proactively. While some people did predict the bubble bursting, I cannot imagine what Romney would have done as a politician to prevent the crisis from materializing. However, I was impressed that in response to the stimulus he gave a specific plan that he would have pursued. He pointed out that in a recession / depression like we were facing in March 2008, consumers lose confidence and begin saving and acting very cautionary. Therefore giving money to extra cautious citizens like Obama’s stimulus plan did, is not an efficient use of money because so many Americans spent on only the bare neccessities in this time quite possibly saving the extra stimulus check not knowing how bad the coming times would be. Instead Romney proposed that businesses should have been given incentives to make capital expenditures. He claimed that business are better at looking at the long-term and that giving business incentives to grow would pick up the entire economy. While "incentivizing business" is often simply a typical Republican answer, I was impressed that he went one step further and expressed that he would have accomplished this by allowing companies to expense any capital expenditure (computers, software, vehicles, buildings etc) at the time of purchase therefore giving businesses the tax benefit right away instead over 5-20 year depreciable life of the asset. I think this would have been a great stimulus for our country and would have fueled growth much faster than giving every American a $1,000 check to put under their pillow.

2) How can he champion his Massachusetts' healthcare bill but be against the recent reform?
Here he argued that recent reform in its 2,000 pages gave the power to the government to either make insurance industry very rich or broke. He argued against parts of the legislation that will allow the gov't to say what insurance companies must offer and how much they can charge for it. He argued his plan just erased the free rider problem of some citizens not paying for health care insurance but instead relying on tax payers to foot their bill. (He stated this country already had "universal health care" in that everyone gets medical coverage when needed. He said if someone without health care insurance has a heart attack or other medical emergency they go to the hospital and the state / the tax payers pay for their care.
He argued that his seventy page bill made sure everyone paid for the care they received by forcing citizens who choose to not have health insurance to pay a penalty for the extra cost they are imposing on the tax payers. He also made sure to make the popular Republican argument that health care should be up to the states and that the government needs to stay out of American business. Overall, I was interested to see how he would address the heatlh care reform topic and I think his answer / explanation to the differences between his plan and Obama's will play a big role if he (when) he chooses to run in 2012.
3) How does he think he can capture the Evangelical vote given his Mormon religion?
He stated that theologians have been battling out religion for centuries so he doesn't think he can add anything to that debate or that he should get involved. His whole speech / platform is about appealing to the thinking, fiscal Republicans. While this may win him my support, will it suffice for Moral Majority Christians? I think he needs to continue to follow in Kennedy's footstep with more speeches like this.

The Power of the Veto Threat

2010-04-16T14:34:00.000-07:00

In a timely article relevant to our class discussion, CBS reports that if the financial reform bill doesn't regulate derivative markets, the President will veto it. Obama is also pushing Senate Democrats to eliminate a proposed $50 billion bank liquidation fund from the bill:

"In remarks at the start of his meeting with his Economic Recovery team, the president said he wants financial regulatory reform legislation because "we can't allow history to repeat itself." He said Americans should not have to step in and pay the price for the irresponsibility of speculators on Wall Street."

The event exemplifies a salient theme of the The Federalist: ambition being made to counteract ambition. Checks and balances such as the veto - and Congress's power to override them - pit the different branches of government against each other. This encourages confrontation. The system requires leveraging, bargaining, and ultimately, cutting a deal. Obama knows this, and he has positioned himself to take advantage.

"Who do I call if I want to call Europe?"

2010-04-15T17:49:00.000-07:00

There may now be an answer to Kissinger’s famous question. As of 1 December 2009, the European Union has an official president - Herman Van Rompuy. Although president of the supranational institutions of 27 Member States and 500 million European citizens, you probably have never heard of or seen this man. Conservative Member of the European Parliament, Nigel Farage, offers a brief introduction to Van Rompuy in a striking personal attack.

This man is paid more than Obama, yet nobody knows who he is. How do Van Rompuy’s powers compare to those of the American presidency? First off, there are important distinctions to make. The European Union does have branches of government, like the United States, but there are differences in order to maintain the sovereign federal structure of the EU. The European Parliament serves as the legislative branch, the European Commission serves as the executive branch, and the the Court of Justice of the European Union serves as the judicial branch. There is a fourth branch of power called the European Council, and its members are the 27 heads of state of the Member States of the EU and, now, the permanent President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy. Unlike President Obama who has the power to drive our nation’s policies and serve as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, President Van Rompuy’s role is largely symbolic.

Under Article 9b of the Treaty of Lisbon (the "Constitution of Europe), the President's role and powers are defined as follows:

5. The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. In the event of an impediment or serious misconduct, the European Council can end the President's term of office in accordance with the same procedure.

6. The President of the European Council:

(a) shall chair it and drive forward its work;

(b) shall ensure the preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council;

(d) shall present a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings of the European Council.

The President of the European Council shall, at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

The President of the European Council shall not hold a national office.

In this way, we see that the executive powers are spread out in the European Union, and that the President himself does not have a large degree of power. This raises a valid question. Because Van Rompuy is the symbolic leader of 500 million citizens, is the method by which he was chosen democratic?

A Fight over Federalism

2010-04-15T17:06:00.000-07:00

A recent article in the NY Times reports an interesting battle between the states and the federal government that has implications for a slew of issues from gays to guns. The controversy is over states' declarations of their right, in some cases, to assert supremacy over federal authority. Gov. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, for example, signed a bill declaring federal regulation of firearms invalid if a weapon is made and used in South Dakota. Utah's governor did the same. Their brazenness has sparked debate over how far states' rights go in American federalism - and where those rights end.

So what actually happens when state sovereignty and federal authority collide? The constitution is clear: the Feds win. But recent events - like DOJ's willingness to respect state medical marijuana laws - have shown that nullification can work. Article 6 would settle state vs. federal government scuffles in court. But that's only if the issue gets to court. If it doesn't, some states can do things their way, contradict federal law, and get away with it.

Utah state Representative Carl Wimmer argues Utah should have

to sign off on any federal health reform.

Presidency II

2010-04-14T12:48:00.000-07:00

Federalist 70

Tocqueville, p. 126: "If the Union’s existence were constantly menaced, and if its great interests were continually interwoven with those of other powerful nations, one would see the prestige of the executive growing, because of what was expected from it and of what it did."

DEBT: Coming to a Generation Near You!

2010-04-13T15:54:00.000-07:00

I write this blog after reading the TIME magazine article “How to Tame the Deficit” by Jeffrey D. Sachs. Many of the statistics used in this blog come directly from his article and my opinions and ideas were heavily shaped by reading it. Here is the link to the original article.

The American economy is on the brink of ruin. A demographic tsunami of retired baby boomers supported by a smaller workforce, a second housing crisis set to detonate in 2011-2012 (altay and option-arm loans set to cause 8 million defaults), a huge trade imbalance with countries like China, and a debt that takes up 60% of the U.S. GDP have formed into a large freight train ready to cream Uncle Sam as he attempts to pick himself up. What do the politicians of America say to do? The same two things as always: cut taxes and spend more. The ironic thing is this is exactly what Congress and President Obama have done. The Republicans got their tax cuts and the Democrats got more spending, so who’s mad? The American people should be. How is it possible to reduce government income and increase government expenditures and expect anything but debt? The answer is: you can’t.

Ask a Republican about debt and they’ll say it’s the Democrats’ fault for increasing social expenditures. Ask a Democrat and they’ll say it’s the Republicans’ fault for cutting taxes on wealthy individuals and corporate profits (in addition to spending on the Iraq war). Yet both are at fault. Currently the United States government collects only 17% of GDP through taxes. That accounts for spending on four government programs. 5% of GDP goes to military, 5% goes to health (Medicare and Medicaid), 5% goes to Social Security, and 2% goes to paying interest on the national debt. There goes your 17%.

Now here is a list of programs that need are not paid for at current tax levels:

· Homeland Security

· Unemployment Compensation

· Job Training

· Support for State and Local governments

· Federal higher-education outlays

· Satellites

· Manned Space Missions

· The National Science Foundation

· The National Institutes of Health

· The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

· Community Development

· Food Stamps

· Low-costing Housing

· Roads and Bridges

· Environmental Protection and Conservation

· Emergency Relief and Reconstruction (like Hurricane Katrina aid)

· Judicial and Penal systems

· International Diplomacy

· Poverty Reduction

· Renewable Energy

These are fundamental services provided by the government: a judicial system, border-patrol, environmental clean-up, food stamps, and unemployment aid. These fundamental services are being paid for by loans from China; this is not really a good government policy. So now, there is no question as to why America is in debt up to our eye-balls and sinking rapidly: we spend too much and tax too little. It is true that the United States has been more indebted in the past, during the mid-1940s debt exceeded 100% of GDP, the difference is we were in a world war and eliminated the debt by way of American tanks and American taxes. Now, American tanks no longer seem a viable option. Nevertheless, American taxes are part of the solution that will end our spiraling deficits and spiraling debt.

Some would argue that we need only to cut spending and wasteful earmarks to solve our problems. Look at long list above and pick what to cut first; not too many good options. It is true that government can spend less on certain programs and spend more efficiently on others. Military spending can be reduced by eliminating wasteful defense projects, like Post Cold-War Top Gun fighter jets, and slashing pay to overpriced defense contractors. Yet government outlay on military spending remains 6 times larger than the outlay on education. Earmarks are great campaign scapegoats, labeled as “wasteful government spending”, but only account for less than 1% of the annual national deficit.

The solution to America’s national debt is either reduce government spending on entitlements or increase taxes. Frankly, someone needs to bite the bullet and tell the American people the way it is: taxes need to be higher, way higher, or entitlements must be reduced. As for entitlements, Americans must learn to live with smaller social security checks or hope that my generation makes a lot of money to support the baby boomers. It seems unlikely that major cuts in entitlements are means justified by their ends: less funding for troops, the poor, and the elderly seem like bad ideas that will reduce the debt at the cost of making the nation as a whole worse off. As for taxes, the total take of American governmental revenue (federal, local, and state) accounts to 28%-30% of GDP; this is 10% less than the average European total revenue. The programs listed earlier in this blog post need to be funded. They account for 11% of GDP, a percentage we currently borrow from China only to pay interest on later. The United States government could at least increase taxes on all but the extremely poor, by an extra 10% of GDP.

Bottom line: The U.S. Government needs to become more efficient with its spending, but TAXES MUST BE HIGHER TO PROVIDE 330 MILLION PEOPLE WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL SERVICES PROVIDED BY A GOOD GOVERNMENT.

But the real question is: who in their right mind would use this as a campaign slogan?

Number of Bills Sponsored

2010-04-12T19:16:00.000-07:00

While I was doing research for my last paper, I looked up the bills that my Congressman, David Dreier [R-CA-26], was head sponsoring in this current session of Congress. He is sponsoring a total of 9. At first I thought, "Wow. This Guy is not doing very much. He is only trying to pass 9 bills." This makes sense when one thinks of the thousands of bills that are proposed each session of Congress. I looked up six other random members of Congress to see how many bills they were proposing this session. On the lowest end, Nancy Pelosi [D-CA-8] and John Boehner [R-OH-8] each were proposing 12 bills. Then Louie Gohmert [R-TX-1] was sponsoring 13 of his own. Then came Neil Abercrombie [D-HI-1] with 20, John Campbell [R-CA-48] with 23, and Barney Frank [D-MA-4] with 46 of his own. All six of these members of Congress come out to averaging a head-sponsorship of 21 bills each in this current session of Congress. That's 12 more than my Congressman, David Dreier. I realized that this is probobly not a case of laziness by an incumbent, but that it is actually a plus. To only introduce a small number of bills compared to the average, you are able to focus more of your efforts, time, and resources to securing the passage of those. I'm sure that Barney Frank, if he is taking an active role in securing the passage of his 46 bills, has his plate too full and his work cut out for him. David Dreier, on the other hand, is able to focus on passing bills only for the topics that are the most important to him and his constituents. More members of Congress should think about trimming the amount of societal "good" they are trying to do and focus their efforts on passing less, but more effective legislation.

Financial Reform

2010-04-12T12:15:00.000-07:00

Does anyone sympathize with the "fat cats?" After we all watched Wall Street dig an economic ditch for our country, the answer is "no." This spring, Senate Democrats will look to take advantage of the public's negative attitudes by proposing a strong financial reform bill. With only 59 seats in the senate, Democrats will need some bipartisan support. Though house and senate Republicans have opposed most liberal legislation since Obama took office, it will be a tough political stance to oppose fairly strict regulations on Wall Street. If Republicans vote to pass the bill, Democrats get what they want. If Republicans oppose the bill, Democrats get what they want. Since voters won't be happy with a party that wants to keep finance on Wall Street the way it has been (disastrous), Republicans might be forced by public opinion to pass the bill. So whether or not Democrats pass their liberal legislation, they will benefit either by policy or by the upcoming midterm elections.

Presidency I

2010-04-12T10:24:00.001-07:00

Congressional powers in Article I

Washington

FDR

Congress II

2010-04-07T10:46:00.000-07:00

BLOG!!!!

Congress and the New Media

House Hub and House homepage
Senate Hub and Senate homepage

Motives of members

Reelection
Power
Policy

Federalist 57:

[The] House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it. I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.

Federalist 63 on continuity and the Senate:

Yet however requisite a sense of national character may be, it is evident that it can never be sufficiently possessed by a numerous and changeable body. It can only be found in a number so small that a sensible degree of the praise and blame of public measures may be the portion of each individual; or in an assembly so durably invested with public trust, that the pride and consequence of its members may be sensibly incorporated with the reputation and prosperity of the community.

Tocqueville:

When you enter the House of Representatives in Washington, you feel yourself struck by the vulgar aspect of this great assembly. Often the eye seeks in vain for a celebrated man within it. Almost all its members are obscure persons, whose name furnishes no image to one’s thought. They are, for the most part, village attorneys, or those in trade. . . . In a country where instruction is almost universally widespread, it is said that the people’s representatives do not always know how to write correctly.

Characteristics of members

Congressional powers in Article I

Congress I

2010-04-05T11:17:00.000-07:00

The official version

Introducing a bill:

Congressional Staffer Salary

2010-04-04T22:18:00.000-07:00

Last week, Politico reported, “Nearly 2,000 House of Representative staffers pulled down six-figure salaries in 2009, including 43 staffers who earned the maximum $172,50.” This number has outraged some, especially those on the right, because the economy still hasn’t picked up and the unemployment rate is still a very high 9.7%.

Reading the textbook and hearing the lectures on the role of the Congressional staffer, I am almost inclined to think some staffers should be paid more than their congressmen. Mainly through ignorance, I think the public has a misconception of how essential the average staffer is to Congress. Without their staff, members of congress would be sloppy, unprepared, and overworked. As the textbook states, “No responsibility of congressional staff is more important than helping the elected members pass sound legislation.” Without them, no one would read the bills.

Even you do not think congressional staffers should handle the majority of the legislative process, you should believe in fair compensation. Nancy Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly reminds people, these staffers “could be making a lot more money in the private sector, but they choose to work here.” These men and women have risked better financial stability for their families in order to work for the government. People should remember this before they are outraged at the six-figure salary.

Maybe in the future, Congressmen will have time to read each bill they vote on and time to write speeches and press releases. I am not holding my breath. The staffers are essential to political process.

Mass Media II

2010-03-31T11:18:00.000-07:00

Survey of journalist leanings

Data on partisanship and news audiences

Public knowledge

Agenda-setting

TV coverage of Iraq & Afghanistan

Changes in the media

Online

Aggregator sites: Drudge Report and Real Clear Politics
Original news site: The Politico
Opinion/news sites: Huffington Post and National Review Online

Hybrids

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 1

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Reform

The Relationship between Church and State in Obama's Administration

2010-03-30T16:19:00.000-07:00

After reading in the New York Times that Obama hosted a Seder in the White House, I was intrigued. Given Biden's recent criticism of Israeli President Benyamin Netanyahu's plan to build 1,600 new settlements in East Jerusalem and the responses of Clinton and other senior officials of the Obama Administration, this celebration may seem strange or even contradictory to some. (Some of the more conservative pro-Israel groups have accused Obama and his administration of being "anti-Israel" and "anti-peace". Others, including Netanyahu's brother-in-law, have even gone so far as to accuse Obama of anti-Semitism, which would make his celebration of Passover especially strange.) That a Christian president would celebrate a Jewish holiday seems absurd in itself. In this way the Seder reflects the complex and ever-changing symbolic relationship between religion and the Obama Administration.

The US Government - and, more specifically, the White House - often celebrates and endorses Christian traditions - for example, the annual Easter egg roll on the White House lawn, or the First Lady's festive decor revealed through thousands of televisions across the US every year around Christmastime. While these customs do not have any real policy implications, they reflect the dominance of Christianity in our society and its strong (albeit indirect) influence on the government.

Obama, however, has diverged from this pattern. In his inaugural speech, he included some religious rhetoric, but also openly embraced non-Christians: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers," he said. His 3rd annual celebration of the Seder also reflects this willingness to accept other religions and recognize their role in public life. Too often minority religious and belief groups (atheists and agnostics are two examples of what I would consider to be a "belief group") feel discrimination based on their views and practices. In some sense, there is a religious "tyranny of the majority", as Tocqueville put it: since Christianity predominates greatly, there is often great societal pressure to conform to Christian norms and standards, whether in politics or in social life. (Obviously this pressure will vary geographically: a Jew or atheist in the evangelical South is far more likely to face discrimination and hatred than in New York City, for example. While that isn't to say atheists or others don't judge mistreat Christians, their bigotry is often less widespread and has less impact than Christian bigotry because of the numbers of both groups.) Obama's acceptance of these minority groups, however, alleviates this pressure to conform, allowing greater discussion of policies and views, especially those Christian belief usually condemns (e.g. pro-choice or pro-gay marriage policies). Even if public deliberation ultimately discards such policies, it will at least have ensured that there would be no better option than the one they chose. Recognizing and considering alternative viewpoints is an important part of the legislative process, and while I don't think Obama has fully liberated political discussion from a religious "tyranny of the majority", his actions tend towards that direction.

Obama's stance on religion does not have a direct impact on policy. But it does secularize the US government's image: if public officials recognize all of their constituents' religions, they cannot logically allow one ideology (Christianity, that is) to hold strong, monopolistic influence over them (and thereby over the policies they create). I am interested to see if this trend is just an anomaly of the Obama administration or if it is a sign that American society is moving away from a "Christianized" public life in response to (what some would call) "extremism" and bigotry from some members of the Religious Right and other religious groups.

Mass Media

2010-03-29T12:48:00.001-07:00

Ruckus media manual

Survey of journalist leanings

Data on partisanship and news audiences

Public knowledge

Colbert & Daily Show as news sources

The mix of comedy and news is old.

Reading for Wednesday

2010-03-29T12:29:00.000-07:00

Selections from The State of The News Media 2010 (released March 15):

Introduction and summary essays:

History of Senate reconciliation vote

2010-03-25T13:36:00.000-07:00

After talking about the next step for the health care reform the other day, I became interested in the reconciliation process. I found this Bloomberg article very interesting in explaining the history behind this type of legislation.

The 2008 Media Meet the 1858 Media

2010-03-24T17:48:00.000-07:00

A really good discussion of the Lincoln-Douglas debates on ... The Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Allen Guelzo

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Reform

Parties and Elections

2010-03-24T12:42:00.000-07:00

Party in the Electorate

Cinematic Map of Party Strength
Polarization and Landslide Counties
Party Identification by State
National Party Identification: history & demographics
Latest Party Identification Data

The Big Picture: Electoral Context

Campaign Finance

Financial incumbency advantage
The best explanation of campaign fundraising in the history of film:

The Ground War

You are an Organizer.
Things are always great. Be positive.
Think with your head: be driven by your heart.
People will come to the campaign for Barack. They stay because of you.
Empower yourself and others will be empowered.
Respect your community and your coworkers.
NEVER lie.
The phone is your greatest tool and your best friend.
If it is not written down, it does not exist.
Campaigns are won when goals are met.
Have goals. Be accountable. Make others accountable.
“Some” is not a number, “soon” is not a time. Only hard numbers count.
Keep it simple.
Listen actively.
Time is the most valuable resource you have. Don’t waste it.
Have a back-up plan for every situation.
Look and act professional. You are Barack’s surrogate in your community.
When you’re not working, remember that the other side is.

The Air War

Air Midterm

2010-03-24T11:17:00.000-07:00

Relax. This “air midterm” does not count toward your grade; do not even turn it in. Instead, use it to appraise your own progress in the course. Try out this test, either in your head or on paper. If you flounder, then you should take more care with class sessions and assigned readings.

I. Identifications. Explain the meaning and significance of the following items. Each answer should be a brief paragraph. What is fair game for an identification?

Items that we have discussed in class or on the blog;
Items that appear in bold or italics in the readings;
Items that cover several pages in the readings.

Natural rights
Great Compromise
Nullification
Dual citizenship
Social Gospel
The Lemon Test
Fourteenth Amendment
Political socialization
Astroturf lobbying
Divided government
“A City on a Hill”

II. Short answers. Each should be a brief paragraph.

1. Explain how basic features of our constitutional system shape PIG and PO.

2. Briefly explain: “Religion, which never intervenes directly in the government of American society, should therefore be considered as the first of their political institutions, for although it did not give them the taste for liberty, it singularly facilitates their use thereof.

3. Briefly explain: “[O]f those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”

4. What are some of the disadvantages of federalism?

5. Explain how direct democracy is still part of American politics.

III. General Essays. Each answer should take 3-4 small bluebook pages.

1. “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.” Explain how the health care debate illustrates the meaning of this passage.

2. Explain how the Internet can both advance and hinder deliberative democracy.

3. According to Tocqueville, what are the main causes that check majority tyranny and maintain a democratic republic in the United States? Does the system work as he described it?

IV. Bonus questions (one point each) Very briefly identify the following:

Steny Hoyer
Alger Hiss
Nicolas Heidorn
Arianna Huffington
Kay Bailey Hutchison

Third Essay Assignment

2010-03-23T17:28:00.000-07:00

Choose one:

1. Take part in the legislative simulation as a congressional aide, a journalist, an interest group representative, or some other “player.” Do research on your real-life counterparts, and cite the relevant literature. (For instance, if you are playing an aide, consult studies of congressional staff.) Afterward, briefly your role and analyze your activity. What were you trying to accomplish and how? What opportunities and constraints did you face? What did you learn about Congress?

2. Write an op-ed about Congress or the news media. The op-ed should run no more than three pages. On the fourth page, discuss strategy for publishing it. Tell where you would submit it, and why you think it could win acceptance. If you succeed in publishing this op-ed, you will get an A for this assignment. (To qualify for the auto-A, it must appear in a legitimate, professional news outlet. Blogs, newsletters, and student publications do not count.) For an example of a student who did a similar assignment – and got in the LA Times – click here. Andy is now a reporter for The Politico.

3. Do the “How a Member Decides to Vote” exercise at the Center on Congress site. Explain your role and your voting decision. Do some research on how Congress has actually dealt with the issue and then appraise the exercise itself. Did it oversimplify or distort the story, or was it an accurate depiction?

4. Analyze your home House member, using the questions on p. 417 of the textbook. The key question is the last: Whether or not you agree with your representative’s views, do you think that person is doing a good job contributing to American deliberative democracy?

Essays should be typed, stapled, double-spaced, and no more than four pages long. I will not read past the fourth page.

Put your name on a cover sheet. Do not identify yourself on the text pages.

Cite your sources with endnotes, which should be in a standard style (e.g., Turabian or Chicago Manual of Style). Endnote pages do not count against the page limit.

Watch your spelling, grammar, diction, and punctuation. Errors will count against you.

Return essays by the start of class, Wednesday, April 7. Late essays will drop a letter grade. I will grant no extensions except for illness or emergency.

The Signing

2010-03-23T12:31:00.001-07:00

Count the pens:

Healthcare bill

2010-03-22T20:33:00.000-07:00

I found this video informative and helpful. It explains what the healthcare bill will do in the near future and in a couple of years.

Breaking down the health reform bill -NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams

Party!

2010-03-22T12:18:00.000-07:00

Partisanship and Health Care Legislation

Party in Government and Party Organization

.........................Legislative............................Executive

Party in Gov.....House Dem Caucus................POTUS
........................House GOP Conference
........................Senate Dem Caucus
........................Senate GOP Conference

Party Org........DCCC, NRCC, DSCC, NRSC......DNC, RNC

Party in the Electorate

Cinematic Map of Party Strength
Polarization and Landslide Counties
Party Identification by State
National Party Identification: history & demographics
Latest Party Identification Data

St. Patrick's Day Controversy

2010-03-22T02:07:00.000-07:00

For centuries, the Irish were among the most discriminated against group in the United States and Great Britain. Until the early 20th century, they suffered job, housing and other forms of discrimination in the United States. A hundred years ago in the Northeast, window signs advertising for job openings included the words “no Irish need apply.” There’s even a word that describes hostility towards the Irish -hibernophobia, derived from Hibernia, the name the Romans gave Ireland. The struggle of Irish Americans against discrimination parallels the historical struggle of American LGBTs against homophobia. The Irish should therefore feel a special empathy for LGBTs in general, and especially for Irish LGBTs, who have been doubly discriminated against.

The vast majority of St. Patrick’s celebrations exclude LGBTs. They can do so legally because they’re protected under Hurley v. the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston. There are competing First Amendment claims: the organizers' right to decide what message their parade will send out and the unwanted marchers' right to use the city streets to express themselves. It also brings up the issue of Separation of Church and State, as this exclusive Catholic event uses city funds, streets, and police. The landmark 1995 U.S. Supreme Court decision said the private group organizing the march can do so under the Constitution’s First Amendment. The Court ruled, “The selection of contingents to make a parade is entitled to First Amendment protection. Parades such as petitioners' are a form of protected expression because they include marchers who are making some sort of collective point.” For years, LGBT groups have protested their exclusion from St. Patrick’s Day Parades (http://www.ny1.com/5-manhattan-news-content/top_stories/115375/gay-rights-group-protests-exclusion-from-st--patrick-s-day-parade).

On the other hand, many feel that gay Irishmen should concentrate on their ethnicity, rather than their sexual preference, on St. Patrick’s Day. The same Supreme Court decision allowing private groups to exclude gays from St. Patrick’s Day parades also allows Gay Pride parade organizers to exclude anti-gay groups. If this issue fell under anti-discrimination law, there could be anti-gay marriage groups such as Focus on the Family or the National Organization for Marriage marching in Gay Pride parades all across the country.

The decision of whether to march is difficult for politicians. Mayor Thomas M. Menino, the first Italian-American mayor of Boston, has spurned participation in the parade for years because of the organizers' refusal to allow gay groups to register and march. Menino participates each year in the breakfast on the morning of the parade, often does media interviews at the head of the parade for television coverage of the event, and visits South Boston residents' homes during the parade. But as a symbol of his opposition to what he considers the organizers' discriminatory policy, he has consistently refused to march along the route. Apparently not wanting to risk alienating any of his Irish constituents, New York Mayor Bloomberg does march in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade down Fifth Avenue.

The annual March 17 parade down New York’s Fifth Avenue is the oldest in the U.S. and the largest St. Patrick’s Day celebration in the world. For the last few years it has been a tradition for my friends and me to attend the parade, but this was the first year I was made aware of this issue. As I sat on a wall in Central Park watching the parade go by, I was struck by the irony of a parade that excludes the LGBT community in a city that is characterized by liberal ideals. Based on conversations with fellow New Yorkers, I have concluded that many attending the parade are not intentionally expressing agreement with the Irish-Catholic beliefs of the parade organizers. Many, like myself, have just never had exposure to this topic. Although I think the Court had an unfortunate interpretation of the First Amendment, which resulted in exclusiveness, I know that like all issues, there are two sides. However, I now feel more inclined to understand what political statements we sometimes make inadvertently, sometimes by our very presence.

Cost of Healthcare Reform

2010-03-22T00:20:00.000-07:00

The Democrats are celebrating their hard-won victory. Some members of house, in addition to the President, have called this victory good for the nations bottom-line, citing a Congressional Budget Office report that says we will reap tens and hundreds of billions in savings. Yet in a NYT op-ed, DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, the CBO director from 2003-2005, notes that:

the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.
In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

This changes my support for the bill, and I suspect that it would change others as well. I do not consider healthcare--or any other entitlement program--to be an inalienable right. (Some may argue that healthcare is part of the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" referred to as inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. I do not agree. The rights in the Declaration are rights from molestation. We are free to preserve our lives, liberties and happiness without interference from government; we are not guaranteed that any of these shall be effectively realized.)

I am not ethically opposed to social programs (though I had the idea that we deserve anything other than protection of our rights from the government), but I do think we can only have as much as we can afford. Unless the healthcare legislation is edited to ensure that real, substantive cost controls are implemented both for consumers and for the government, I will vote against any representative who supports this bill--all other things being equal.

Political ramifications of tonight's health care reform passage

2010-03-21T21:30:00.000-07:00

Ignoring the actual bill entirely, I am interested to see the political effects this reform will have in elections to come. I am eager to see if the public views the reform in a positive light given Obama is living up to his promises of "Change" or if the public disapproval of the bill will actually cause his rating to to fall.

On a more local level, the following links got me thinking about how this act is trouble for many representatives campaigns. (Huge win for Barack Obama, but split decision for House Democrats, Some Dems walk plank with 'yes' vote)

In my home state of Colorado, I can't see how Democrat representatives who are running for re-election in historically Republican districts stand much chance. Bye Bye Betsy Markey

Rewritting History?

2010-03-16T17:51:00.000-07:00

Last week Texas' Board of Education voted in favor of making some changes to the social studies area of the state's curriculum. (Here is a New York Times' article reporting the most recent vote.) In summary, the board decided to change state textbooks to reflect a more conservative version of social subjects such as history and economics. The first article on the subject that I read was an op ed which criticized the decision and asked: "How can a state decided to rewrite history?" The editorial is quite critical of the decision and describes it as a move by Republicans to push their agenda and put God in schools.

After reading the bold assertions of the op ed author, I decided to look more into the debate and see if this was actually a partisan attempt to "rewrite history". The vote, 10-5 in favor of the Republicans, followed party lines exactly. Concerned about the politics involved with this issue, I suspected the op ed to be the liberal point of view and questioned its objectivity. I looked to review the changes first hand but although the curriculum is supposed to be published for open review, I was unable to find it.

Using the New York Times article for details, I looked at what changes are being made and what the motives behind them actually are. The Board believes it is adding factual pieces to history that are currently omitted. The Republican majority claims history and education are biased by the left's agenda and that it is important to include both sides of the story. In support of this argument, I agree academia is biased to the left and that the history of “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association,” should be included. Economic history is a prime example where the new proposed curriculum attempts to complete the picture. The board stated and I agree that the history and theories of Chicago economists, Frank Knight and Milton Friedman for example, must be included alongside those of Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. Friedman needs to be included, not instead of, but alongside Smith and Keynes to complete the picture and tell the story not advertise a message, political view or agenda. (Note: I am probably biased given I am an economics major at a school dominated by the Chicago school of economics) Education is not limiting what students learn or shaping what they believe politically. Therefore, I fully support including factual information and allowing students the necessary information to learn about the past objectively.

Adding factual information, such as Friedman's theories, to textbooks improves the quality of education and reduces the liberal bias in education. However, not all of the Board's changes are this constructive. In other areas, the board has decided to combat the liberal bias by simply omitting important information in hopes of painting a biased history in line with the message the Republicans are hoping to send to the youth. This is hypocritical and illogical because omitting factual information does not allow students to balance facts but instead forces them to wade through agendas and political struggles to discover simple truths.

The best example of blatant omission can be seen in perhaps the most debated educational issue, separation of church and state. This issue is at the forefront of the proposed changes and rightfully so given it may be the most biased piece of history in the current public education system. When I first came to college and enrolled in a Religion in Politics course I was surprised at the role of religion in American politics. In high school, it was stressed that the founders were not religious and that they believed religion had no role in politics. In my college course, we read numerous primary sources ranging from the Mayflower Compact to state constitutions to personal correspondences between the founders of our great country. From this I began to understand the role religion played in American and the distinction between religion and politics and church and state. In high school, none of this was talked about because there is so much attention and focus given to the political correctness of church and state separation. Therefore the Republicans on the school board are correct in saying America was founded by Christians and also correct in believing all students should be able to learn this truth.

However, where the school Board fails is portrayed clearly by how they attempt to correct the bias view of church and state. Instead of creating a comprehensive explanation of how Church and State separation began and what it actually means, they decide to simply eliminate its "founder", Thomas Jefferson from the list of influential figures and instead focus on more religious figures. Withholding information is the same grievance the Republicans are crying about regarding education today so simply editing pieces of history does nothing but further the subjectivity of the material taught to students. In this sense I have to agree with the op ed author and say that a lot of the proposed changes are not designed to simply add omitted pieces of history but instead are carefully crafted to create a biased political message.

I came to the realization that education has become a partisan battleground just like everything else in this country. Texas' motive behind making the curriculum more Christian does not fix the problem of a politically biased education system. Instead it simply adds another bias for students and professors to compete against in their deliberation for truth.

Civil Rights story

2010-03-11T14:24:00.000-08:00

Mississippi school sued for canceling prom over lesbian student

I found it pretty interesting that the school decided to cancel the event. Maybe a more significant surprise is that the school district policy requires dates to be of the opposite sex.

Participation and Interest Groups

2010-03-10T12:08:00.000-08:00

Thank You for Smoking:

The real MOD Squad

The NRA is a conglomerate, consisting not only of the NRA (a 501(c)(4)), but also:
NRA Political Victory Fund (a PAC)
NRA Foundation (a 501(c)(3) nonprofit)
NRA Institute for Legislative Action (a separate 501(c)(4))
Tips on lobbying

Campaign Money in the Health Debate
Health Professionals
Insurance Industry
Pharmaceuticals

Health Care and the Outside Game:

Rally for the health bill
Ad against the bill by Employers for a Healthy Economy:

Public Opinion and Political Participation

2010-03-08T12:04:00.000-08:00

Measuring Public Opinion

A 2008 focus group:

Ideology

.........................................................Government Intervention in Economic Affairs

.........................................................For....................................... Against

Expansion of

Personal Freedoms.....For Liberal...................................Libertarian

.......................................Against Populist.................................Conservative

Political Socialization

Participation

Martin Scorsese's "The Golden Door" (2006)

2010-03-04T22:21:00.000-08:00

Although I came across "The Golden Door" a week or two after our discussion of American citizenship and immigration, I feel obligated to share this with the class. In an interview with NPR, Martin Scorsese (himself an Italian immigrant) even cites "The Godfather: Part II" as being one of the best films to depict the immigrant's experience coming to America. Interestingly, this part-surrealist, part-realist narrative does not show the Statue of Liberty, a typical mainstay in films about immigration. Despite this trailer's embarrassingly cheesy voice over, this is a must-see for anyone seeking an intriguing representation of an immigrant's journey to America. My favorite line? During the treacherous journey by boat from Sicily to New York, protagonist Salvatore Mancuso introduces himself to the other foreigners on board. "I've never been in a place with so many foreigners," Mancuso marvels. "But we're all Italians," a neighbor retorts. This interaction reveals the vast diversity within the wave of "new immigrants" and the difficulties of finding a community among a disparate group of people. With many language dialects, customs, appearances, and values, the Italian immigrants had to embrace some common ground to shape the Italian-American culture that seems so distinct in the U.S. today.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NkoJXHiQTc

The Worst President Ever?

2010-03-04T20:50:00.000-08:00

I don't remember much of my prospective undergraduate Johns Hopkins tour, but I do remember sitting in a small auditorium while the tour guide listed JH's "best and brightest" alums. She included President Woodrow Wilson, who obtained a doctorate in history and political science there. "How can you say that and look so incredibly unashamed?" I wanted to ask. "Could your institution have possibly failed any worse here?" But I refrained, because I didn't think it would do my application any good.
Declaring one president the absolute worst is a little presumptuous; let's face it, the US has had its fair share of failures and nonentities. Does anyone even remember the presidents of the late 19th century? I know I don't. At least most of these unimpressive characters are recognized as such. What really annoys me about President Wilson is that, somehow, he has not only escaped condemnation but is frequently considered one of our more preeminent statesmen!
Wilson loved The Birth of a Nation and re-segregated the civil service, which we discussed in class. He only supported women’s suffrage after World War I; women’s service in the military (though not in combat) and on the home front forced his hand. Wilson’s greatest crime, though, was his direct culpability for World War II.

What, you say? Hitler started World War II. Everyone knows that! Hitler was no Santa Claus, I agree. He a truly awful man and a somewhat gifted pedagogic, but he was only able to gain political power because Germany’s pride and economy were in shambles. When the Germans surrendered and ended World War I, they did so thinking they would receive a peace like Wilson’s idealistic Fourteen Points. The last point was a League of Nations, so that war would never, ever, happen again. (Can you hear the world laughing?) The US Senate, led by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, did not want to give up its sovereign power to declare war to the League. As long as this one provision was removed, the US would enter the League. But Lodge and Wilson were bitter enemies, so Wilson refused to compromise. The result? The US did not enter the League, completely killing the organization’s efficacy. The French and British, out for revenge, demanded reparations that ruined Germany and Austria’s economies. The Germans felt betrayed, as did the Italians and the Japanese, whose contributions to the war effort the French and British refused to recognize. A little over two decades later, these four disgruntled nations combined to form the Axis powers. When World War II was over, 60 million people were dead. That’s an awfully high price for some personal politicking.

Civil Rights

2010-03-03T12:33:00.000-08:00

Civil War Amendments

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Woodrow Wilson's work in a pro-Klan movie:

Thoughts on the Principles of Affirmative Action

2010-03-02T09:47:00.001-08:00

Although I do not completely agree with the manner in which affirmative action was carried out in certain cases, I understand its principles. As the book states, “In order to treat people equally you must treat them differently.” For many decades, African Americans were discriminated against in every field solely on the bases of their skin color. They were forced to attend inferior schools and live in poverty stricken areas. Although the laws eventually changed, the conditions were and still are slow to catch up. In fact, even today, many inner city schools in African American communities pale in comparison to predominately white suburban schools. Thus, even the best students in inner city schools cannot compete with their white counterparts because of the discrepancies in the educational quality they received. If both groups of students were to apply to college on a strictly colorblind bases, the white students would get in while the minority students with an inferior educational background would most likely not. Therefore, the challenges that a student overcomes must also be taken into account. The minority student could not help that their educational system deprived them or lacked sufficient resources. This, however, does not mean that white students should be discriminated against in turn; it just means that hard working minority students should also get a shot. Thus, equal opportunity cannot be colorblind to be equal.

Supreme Court Case on Handgun Ban

2010-03-02T09:03:00.001-08:00

Here is a Chicago TV report on the case that Chris mentioned in class yesterday:

2010-03-01T12:54:00.000-08:00

Barron v. Baltimore held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.
Things changed with "selective incorporation."
Definition of "strict scrutiny"

The Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

DC v. Heller

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Followup on Attitudes Toward Concentrated Power

2010-02-26T09:47:00.001-08:00

A new poll reinforces a point that we discussed in class this past week. CNN reports:

A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

Tocqueville at the Summit

2010-02-25T21:36:00.000-08:00

The day after we discussed Tocqueville's analysis of the tyranny of the majority, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) mentioned it during the health care summit:

So this is the only place, the Senate, where the rights to the minority are protected and sometimes, as Senator Byrd has said, the minority can be right. I remember reading Alexis de Tocqueville's books, which most of us have read, and he said in his "American Democracy" that the greatest threat to the American democracy would be the tyranny of the majority.

Thought question: did this comment reflect what Tocqueville actually wrote? Do you think that anybody in the room had read Democracy in America?

More on American Civic Culture

2010-02-24T12:50:00.000-08:00

Patriotism

Service