Madison v. Screech: Which T-shirt would they wear?

James Madison might not ever imagined Bayside High School, but he described it perfectly when he wrote Federsalist No. 10.

In his effort to promote the ratification of the Constitution, Madison helped write the Federalist papers to describe the theoretical underpinnings of this unique government.

Besides describing how the concept of Separation of Powers (Federalist No. 51) would work, he also spoke of how this new government would help to contain the archenemy of democracy: factions.

Madison argued that cliques are a natural part of society but were particularly detrimental in a democracy where the majority faction would naturally try to punish the minority factions. He argued that this oppressive situation was most likely to occur in smaller regions.

For instance Bayside High School-- with a student population of 10 -- had a majority faction led by Zac and the gang who ran the school. They led the football team. They ran the school newspaper. They even dictated the policies of their principal Mr. Belding...never considering the impact on the oppressed minority--the Geeks.

A large republic is like a large high school. No one faction can ever dominate. In a large republic, multiple factions have to unite behind common interests to enact public policy.

For instance, in order to win the electoral votes in a state like Florida, candidates vie to win support from the elderly, from Cuban-Americans, from African-Americans, and from the NASCAR crowd. Thus, candidates must tailor their message to unite groups that might have widely different interests.

So, if you are ever asked to read Federalist No. 10, (next week maybe?) be sure to also watch a re-run of Saved by the Bell to gain fuller appreciation of the system that Madison was trying to prevent.

Saved by the Bell WVHS style

While the size of Waubonsie Valley, Madison would maintain, has kept any one faction from succeeding in a power grab, several sub-groups of Warrior seniors have tried separated themselves from the rest of the student body. No less than four "Senior" T-shirts have been worn by faction models. Senior Mean Girls, Senior Princesses. . . then there's the student council senior T, and the many AP faction statements.

Screech and his crew would be all about making the best T-shirt. It would probably make Madison simply want to scream. Linked is Federalist No. 10 for those of you want to get ahead of the bell.

http://www.thisnation.com/library/books/federalist/10.html

Calm After the Storm?

One week after Hurricane Katrina, President Bush spoke to the nation in a well-choreagraphed address. But he didn't mention New Orleans recovery efforts in his last State of the Union.

On Wednesday two years after the worst natural disaster in our nation's history did it's best to destroy a classic American city, President Bush helped a woman hang an American flag from the front of her new home. At another photo opp at Martin Luther King Elementary School, the President said, "This town is coming back. It's better than when Laura and I were here right after the storm. This town is better today than it was yesterday. And it's going to be better tomorrow than it was today."

Historian Douglas Brinkley of Tulane University, author of, "The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina," said on Hardball that a female student wanted to point out to the President that he wasn't here right after Katrina. He was here a week later. But good teachers teach fourth graders to be respectful. And the girl stayed quiet.

Kind of like the actions of governmental policies (federal, state & local) two years after the levies fell and New Orleans drowned.

Bush's motorcade passed scores of boarded up homes and businesses, some still with painted markngs left over from emergency worker's search for survivors and victims. The new house that the President posed in front of was one of the 10% of 70,000 destroyed homes that have been rebuilt. Two-thirds of New Orleans' population has not returned, and crime in the Cresent City is at an all-time high. The levies have been band-aided, but will require $40 million engineering project to really repair.

The President didn't mention moving that project ahead Wednesday, instead he asked Congress for $50 billion more for Iraq.

There is still plenty of government blame to go around post-Katrina. But polls point out that while the President said New Orleans is coming back, public confidence in the government's response may not. And while all second term presidents slump in popularity, Bush's approval rate was at 49% before Katrina (two years into Iraq) and has sunk to 29% today. It has been washed away.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/29/opinion/pollpositions/main3216082.shtml

Brinkley's analysis of inactions post-Katrina are linked here. Bureaucratic red tape and governments at the federal, state and local levels all get blame. the important thing, Brinkley says, is for America to decide whether the current policy of inaction is reallythe way we want to deal with the worst natural disaster in our nation's history.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082401209.html?sub=new

Gone-zo

The resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales offers several fascinating insights into 6+ years of the Bush Administration.

Gonzales had been a long-time aid to President Bush dating back to Bush's days in Texas. His 2.5 year tenure as Attorney General has been marked by controversy from the beginning.

During his confirmation hearings, Senators grilled him on his role in the Bush Administration's tolerance of both torture and humiliating interrogation tactics in Iraq and in our Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

Shortly after becoming the country's 80th Attorney General in 2005, news broke of the Administration's policy that allowed warrantless wiretaps of suspected terrorists. Since then, Congress has worked to determine Gonzales's role in this controversial policy.

More recently, Gonzales has been dogged by accusations that he played a major role in the political firings of several U.S. Attorneys.

Many will say his resignation is long overdue. They contend that Gonzales, as both a legal counsel to Bush and as Attorney General, trampled on the concept of Rule of Law inherent in our Constitutional democracy.

Others will say that in a time of the Global War on Terror, Gonzales had the obligation to search for loopholes in American civil liberties as a way to prevent future terrorist attacks on our soil.Regardless, it's been quite a political ride for Gonzales who--as the highest ranking Hispanic in the history of our Federal government--was once on the short list to be on the U.S. Supreme Court.

From CitizenU.org

Blogger! Who the heck do you think you are?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030702454.html

As an award-winning journalist, who was also sued for $10 million in a prior life, I have been asked if I missed working in the media. Recently, I said no, I’m kinda back at it.

But am I really? Is a Blogger a journalist? Or just a geek, as I have also been called. Are we who read and write on this forum legitimate, or something far less than that with little or no First Amendment protection.

We are beginning to learn more about a community of 3 million active blogs in the United States. Fully 87% of online users have at one time used the internet to carry out research on a scientific topic or concept and 40 million adults use the internet as their primary source of news and information about science.

Far less are Bloggers, but the number is growing. A 2006 Pew Foundation study found that 13% of people have created an online journal or blog, up from 9% in 2005. The study also found that 39% of people have read someone else’s blog (up from 27% in 2005).

So we’re not normal – we knew that already. But our numbers are growing. In the mid-term Congressional elections blogs like: dailykos.com and bluestate.com combined news with opinions (as popular right sights like Drudge had done before) and claimed to help raise millions to shift power on Capitol Hill. Etalkinghead.com lists a total of 504 political blogs (147 conservative, 144 liberal).

But unlike Las Vegas, what is said here isn’t meant to stay here. Therein lies the controversy. Is a blogger free to exercise comment with First Amendment free press protections? While he or she probably doesn’t carry a press pass, should they be able to count on the Constitution?

I’ll use this developing definition from Wikepedia (ugh!) because of the Soapbox reference:

A political blog is a common type of blog that comments on politics. In liberal democracies, the right to criticize the government without interference is considered an important element of free speech. In other jurisdictions bloggers use the uncensored nature of the internet to bypass state controlled news media but as a result may find themselves persecuted.

Political blogs often have a clearly stated political bias. Although mainstream media news is often presented as impartial, bloggers believe that it does in many cases have a hidden political agenda. Stating political bias at the outset is therefore seen as being more honest. On the other hand, blogs are often seen as being too anonymous and lacking in factual reliability to be trustworthy.

However, they can serve as a soapbox for opinions not represented in mainstream media.

Linked is the story of the jailed Josh Wolf (pictured above). He is being cast by some journalists as a young champion of the First Amendment, jailed for taking a lonely stand against heavy-handed federal prosecutors.

A 24-year-old blogger, Wolf spent more than six months behind bars in California -- the longest contempt-of-court term ever served by someone in the media -- for refusing to turn over a videotape he shot of a violent San Francisco demonstration against a Group of Eight summit meeting. A U.S. District Judge ordered him released in April. And on July 4 of last year, he announced his intent to run for Mayor of San Francisco.

Federal prosecutors going after an arson case want Wolf’s tape of the anarchists protest in San Francisco in 2005. Wolf has refused to turn over the tape. The federal government took over the case from state authorities. There is shield law protection for journalists at the California state level, but not at the federal level.

Read the linked story on this and blog your take on whether or not you’d issue Wolf, me or yourself a press pass and first amendment protections.

By the way, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales didn’t fire the federal prosecutor who put Wolf in jail…But that’s another story.

Political Warrior: BP: Bi-Partisan or Back to Pollution?

Political Warrior: BP: Bi-Partisan or Back to Pollution?
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/local_story_206141025.html

BP: Bi-Partisan or Back to Pollution?

One of the top Hardball showdowns of the summer was highlighted last month when CBS2

reported on a story pitting our drinking water against the price we pay for gas at the pump. The story also highlights the conflicts that can arise when federalism allows states to set their own environmental standards.



BP, British Petroleum, had worked out an agreement with both federal and state regulators to allow a more lenient dumping permit.



But Federal lawmakers outside of Indiana--where no jobs are on the line-- are furious.



The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to scold Indiana and BP for the decision to dump more pollutants into Lake Michigan -- the source of drinking water for millions.



Just as important as the politics are the critical concepts at play.



Supply and Demand



To reduce the price of gasoline, BP is converting more Canadian oil into gasoline which results in more byproducts such as ammonia and heavy sludge. Supplying cheaper gasoline has its costs: reducing demand for oil or allowing a larger supply of pollutants into Lake Michigan.



Federalism and Bi-partisanship



In a Federal government, the national government allows states to tailor some decisions in their interests. But in the case of Lake Michigan drinking water, states neighboring Indiana are demanding that the Federal government enforce the Clean Water Act more strictly.



We've grown accustomed to partisan bickering between Democrats and Republicans. So it is refreshing to see that both parties can join together over an issue like clean water. This bipartisan effort is certainly a rarity in today’s politics.



Keep an eye out to see if this story translates into a refreshing glass of water in the near future. By the way, I see this as classic Hardball positioning by federal lawmakers dumping on BP and Indiana officials who see openings for 3,000 dirty jobs that somebody’s got to do -- It might as well be their constituents



Q+A



Please submit any questions or comments to this story.