|
Politics 
Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 07:16 PM CDT
|
|
Journalism is an important piece of our democracy: the fourth estate. However, over the last several years both the economy and the rise of technology have had a negative effect on the backbone of journalism: newspapers. Around the country more and more newspapers are in danger of shutting down, even in large markets such as San Francisco. It is also possible that a large city could be without a newspaper in the coming years. Newspapers in major cities have been able to switch to an online only format, such as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. However, in medium and smaller cities, it could prove difficult for a newspaper to move to an online only format.
According to the Burnt Orange Report, newspaper publishers in Texas are considering sharing their content; this is the possible outcome of editors under pressure to produce news with less and less staff. Local media outlets have covered state and local politics less and less over the years; instead newspapers and television stations have focused on crime. In turn there are less and less journalist covering state politics in Austin, which means that politicians, lobbyist, and influential citizens will be questioned less and less.
More Below the Fold...
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 628 words in story)
|
|
Mon Jul 06, 2009 at 06:55 PM CDT
|
|
Less than a year ago it was reported that the presumptive Republican nominee for President, Senator John McCain, had chosen Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his nominee for Vice President; the first thought I had after reading those reports was that John McCain had just lost the presidential election. As I watch the press conference in which Palin announced her intention to resign as governor of Alaska the only thought that I had was that this was the second worst political move that I had witness in the last year. However, the difference in my thoughts was that I understood the logic and the thought process behind the McCain campaign nominating Palin as Vice President, but I did not comprehend what the logic or thought process was behind Palin's resignation.
Palin touted her accomplishments as Governor: the promotion of private energy projects, ethics reform, and fiscal conservatism. Of course she took time to mention the cutting of the perks of the executive office such as the plane and the chef. She proudly took credit for all of the successes that where achieved in two years as governor, and how she protected Alaska from the "immoral" stimulus funds.
"You don't hear much about the good stuff in the press anymore, do ya?"
More Below the Fold...
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 613 words in story)
|
|
Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 07:24 PM CDT
|
|
The US House of Representatives passed HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, sometimes referred to as the Waxman-Markey Bill, or ACES, by a vote of 219-212. A majority in the House of Representatives in 218 votes. While I wish I could say this vote went along party lines, it did not. 8 Republicans (none from Texas) voted for the bill, while an amazing 44 Democrats voted against President Obama, the environment, and green jobs (including three from Texas). These Dems should be whipped and whipped hard. The consensus in the enviro community was that this bill was watered down and wouldn't meet the promise of a truly great energy and climate bill. But it would be the best we could get. The closeness of the vote shows that every compromise literally had to be made to get any climate bill passed. As for our Texas delegation, we have good news and bad news. (more after bump)
|
|
There's More...
:: (6
Comments, 427 words in story)
|
|
Fri May 29, 2009 at 04:57 PM CDT
|
|
Liberty University has prohibited privileges granted to other student organizations, and these privileges where denied based solely on what the organization believes. Did Liberty deny recognition to a white supremacy group, or did Liberty not allow an anti-Semitic organization to use the universities name in association with their group? The university has denied the College Democrats to ability to use the university's name or to receive any funding from the university, based on their support of candidates.
According to a Liberty press release, the College Democrats are allowed to meet on campus, however the student group could no longer identify with the university and the university will no longer sponsor or endorse the group. The university has stated that this would be a better situation for the student group because they did not have to gain approval for meetings and could endorse candidates that are pro-life. However, this also means that the student group cannot participate in promoting their group on campus, and will not be allowed to invite speakers or hold any other events besides the unofficial meetings.
According to a National Public Radio (NPR) report, the chancellor of the university, Jerry Falwell, Jr., said that ""It's not about Democrat/Republican. It's about protecting the sanctity of life." Falwell stated that the reason the student group is not longer recognized was because of its support for pro-choice candidates and candidates that support gay rights. The College Democrats on campus have not publically endorsed abortion rights or same-sex marriage, and in fact the group's constitution expresses their opposition to those policies. In the NPR report Brian Diaz, the President of the College Democrats, said that "Jesus talked about the poor more than he did about abortion or gay marriage."
According to another article in the Washington Post, Diaz stated that the group's constitution, which was approved by university officials, gives the group latitude to endorse candidates. Both the College Democrats and the College Republicans endorsed candidates. Also, according to the same article the two groups where preparing to organize anti-abortion events this fall.
More Below the Fold...
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 399 words in story)
|
|
Wed May 27, 2009 at 03:58 PM CDT
|
|
President Barack Obama likes to make history. Yesterday Obama announced Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee for Supreme Court Justice; Sotomayor, if confirmed by the Senate, will be only the third woman to serve on the Supreme Court and the first person of Latin descent. Within the first twenty-four hours of the announcement the conservative voices began to attack Sotomayor, and the attacks have little if anything to do with substance and everything to do with sexism and racism. However, most of the mainstream media and even most of the alternative media will not call these attacks what they are.
There have been the expected references to Judge Sotomayor being a liberal and an activist judge, and these labels would have been applied to whatever nominee President Obama would have announced. However, there have been questions raised about her intellect and her temperament, questions that are completely centered in sexism. From all of the usual suspects these questions have been raised about a woman with impeccable credentials, a woman that graduated with honors from two of the most prestigious universities in the country. None of these same questions where raised about any of the previous male nominees. Also, this idea of temperament has a mixture of both sexism and racism. Women who achieve higher positions of authority are often painted as less feminine, and as being overly aggressive. There is also the racial stereotype of the angry Latin woman, a stereotype that is often specifically perpetuated about Puerto Rican women.
Judge Sotomayor has also already been labeled as a racist, or even the ridiculous label of reverse racist, because of the Ricci v New Haven case in which the New Haven fire department through out promotion exams because it was deemed racial bias. There is also the quote that the conservatives are already repeating with regularity. Sotomayor said in 2001 that, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." That sound you heard was every conservative white man clinching his fist at the idea that a Latina could actually reach a better conclusion than them.
More Below the Fold...
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 447 words in story)
|
|
Wed Apr 15, 2009 at 09:00 AM CDT
|
|
I was recently having a conversation with a fellow student, and we were talking about the debate in Texas about whether or not students should be allowed to carry concealed guns on campus. This student and I happen to share the same view that concealed guns should not be allowed on campus, and this view happens to be one of the few that we have in common. I am a liberal, and he is a conservative. I vote Democrat, and he votes Republican.
This fellow student then recounted a story to me about a conversation he had with one of his professors on the subject of concealed guns on campus. When he told this professor that he was against allowing students to carry concealed guns on college campuses the professor asked him if he was a liberal. The student told the professor that he was a conservative and a Republican, but that he was pro gun control and pro choice. "You're a conservative Democrat."
More Below the Fold...
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 547 words in story)
|
|
Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 11:03 PM CST
|
( - promoted by Matt Glazer)
Next Tuesday, March 10th, 2009 the Senate "Committee of the Whole" will conduct a hearing in Austin on proposed photo Voter ID legislation in the Texas Senate chamber. We need you to call the following state Senators to help defend our fundamental right to vote by voicing your opposition against this bill, which is part of a national Republican campaign to suppress the vote and keep failed leaders in office. Please call the following to voice your opposition to proposed photo Voter Identification legislation in the Texas Senate:
The Honorable Jeff Wentworth
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0125
fax: (512) 463-7794
email: http://www.senate.state.tx.us/...
The Honorable Joan Huffman
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0117
email: http://www.senate.state.tx.us/...
The Honorable Tommy Williams
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0104
(512) 463-6373 fax
email: http://www.senate.state.tx.us/...
The Honorable Glenn Hegar
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0118
fax: (512) 475-3736
email: http://www.senate.state.tx.us/...
The Honorable Steve Ogden
P.O. Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 463-0105
(512) 463-5713 (fax)
email: http://www.senate.state.tx.us/...
Let them know: (below the fold)
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 483 words in story)
|
|
Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 07:34 PM CST
|
|
Over the last several days the Republican Party has been struggling with something: itself. For liberals and progressives there are few things as entertaining as watching the Grand OLD Party eat itself: between David Brooks calling Bobby Jindal's response to President Obama's State of the Nation speech "the worst response to a Democratic speaker in the history of democracy" and the Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman apologizing to Rush Limbaugh.
It can only be assumed that after Election Day the GOP, and the conservative movement by extension, began going through the stages of grief is somewhere between denial and anger. What should be interesting is when the GOP moves to the bargaining stage, if this current stage is any indication it is going to continue to be a political disaster. At the current rate it seems as though acceptance much further in the future than a mid-term election.
More Below the Fold...
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 433 words in story)
|
|
Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:33 AM CST
|
|
Over and over, as I've either broken the news of this story or discussed it with someone, the exact same conversation has happened: Me: Did you hear about Bill Richardson? Someone else: (insert favorite swear word here)!!! I really liked him! What the (other swear) happened?!?! So, I wrote this blog post originally over at Public Citizen's blog, because, in the words of Space Ghost, "You're bringing me down, Man!" I’ve heard it said that churches are supposed to make bad men good and good men better. Our campaign finance system seems to do the opposite: make good men bad and bad men worse (ie, Governors Richardson and Blagojevich, respectively). As far back as Socrates, outside observers have noticed the corruptive influence of money on public policy. Our public servants worshiping at the altar of campaign donations is sure path to hell for most of us. But the fact that we force them to do so by not providing a public financing system begs the question: Are we getting what we deserve? As Richardson withdraws his name for consideration of being Commerce Secretary, more and more details are coming out about his ethical problems. Did he take campaign donations that changed his votes? Possibly, or at least there’s enough of an ethical cloud there that no one can know for sure.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 167 words in story)
|
|
Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:40 PM CST
|
|
National Politics: Obama Transition
President Elect Barack Obama has begun to choose is White House staff, and his first selection was Rahm Emanuel for White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel is a Congressman from Illinois's 5th congressional district, and was the Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the 2006 midterm elections. According to Politico.com the selection "was a powerful signal of Obama's determination to be effective under the existing rules of the Washington game." While John Nichols of the Nation described the selection of Emanuel as "best understood as a disappointing choice rather than a definitional selection." Jacob Weisberg of Slate described Emanuel in 1996 as "the [Clinton] administration's most diabolically effective tactician." While Noam Scheiber of the New Republic made a case for Emanuel because no one else had the "combination of policy chops, Hill knowledge, and the understanding of how to mobilize voters that he'll need to pass major initiatives like healthcare reform."
What Rahm Emanuel symbolizes is that while we can expect an Obama Administration to be bi-partisan, we can also expect to see the administration aggressively perusing Obama's agenda. The role of the Chief of Staff is to execute the President's agenda, and no one has argued that Emanuel will not be able to execute with proficiency. There have been those that have characterized Emanuel as a partisan, and there have been those that have characterized him as moderate. However, it does not matter, what matters is whether or not he will be able to execute what it is a President Obama will ask him to do. Barack Obama ran one of the most discipline campaigns that have been seen in politics, and the appointment of Emanuel symbolizes that an Obama White House will be just as disciplined.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 822 words in story)
|
|
|
|
|
| Poll |
| Who do you support in the 299th District Court Runoff? |
|
|
|
Results
|
|
