It’s common for the Texas Tribune Festival to tackle hot topics and few topics are as discussed as artificial intelligence. This year’s festival offered multiple sessions on AI, including panels that addressed the regulations implemented in response to the technology as well as speculation on what the future holds.
The panels included Rep. Giovanni Capriglione; Mayor Pro Temp Vanessa Fuentes; Matte Dunne, Director, Center on Rural Innovation; Betsy Greytok, Associate General Counsel, IBM; Professor Sherri Greenberg, UT Austin; Amanda Crawford, Director, Texas Department of Information Services; Daniel Culbertson, Economist, Indeed; and Elizabeth Rhodes, Director, OpenResearch. In short, a lot of human intelligence to discuss the importance of artificial intelligence.
A key part of the discussion was Capriglione’s HB 149 (TRAIGA), a sprawling bill that prevents companies from manipulating software to encourage self-harm; prohibits government entities from creating “social credit” scores; bans governments from capturing biometric information; forbids individuals from creating sexual deepfakes or simulated child pornography; while also providing for various enforcement mechanisms.
The legislation, Capriglione emphasized, is limited in what it bans, but it is capable of accommodating future directions of AI. Such would allow the legislation to keep up with developments in the field.
One such development on minds is the extent to which AI threatens people’s jobs. Rep. Capriglione addressed this, asking the audience, “How many of you think AI will take your job in the next five years?” When only about six people raised their hands, Rep. Capriglione said something to the effect of (I am paraphrasing): “The rest of you are in denial, I guess?”
Not everyone agreed with this assessment. Culbertson suggested that AI would be a position augmenter rather than a position replacer. Of course, if productivity is augmented, then companies may not need their current work forces–suggesting they could let employees go and retain their current levels of productivity and profits.
A recurring theme is that, in most cases, AI will not replace jobs. But people who can use AI well may replace people who cannot use AI well. This may be bad news for seniors and those who primarily perform menial tasks, people not well-known for keeping up with technological advances. In a major study, Goldman Sachs estimates that “at most” 2.5 percent of the workforce may be replaced by automation owing to AI.
For what it’s worth, Chat GPT seems to agree with the panelists. According to Chat GPT, “You won’t compete against AI — you’ll compete with people who use AI.”
The panel–and Chat GPT–have thus provided some programming suggestions for LEAP Center staff and the LEAP Ambassadors.
Although our foray into The Texas Tribune Festival brought us to different panels, focusing on different levels of government, and from different branches of government, a common theme pervaded: government works best when it isn’t dominated by one figure or one branch. It’s perhaps no surprise to hear federal judges push back against pressure from the executive branch, but it was more unusual to hear former Texas Speaker of the House Dade Phelan share the same sentiment.
Nonetheless, this is what we heard as we ventured into the Bethel Hall at St. David’s Episcopal Church. Despite the presence of the Texas Tribune Editor-in-Chief Matthew Watkins and Political Reporter Eleanor Kilbanoff, the focus was on former Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan, who recently announced his retirement from the Texas House.
Somewhat unusually, this elicited a comment from President Donald Trump weighed in on Phelan’s impending retirement: “Fortunately for the Great State of Texas, their Former Speaker, who is no longer Speaker, Dade Phelan, is quitting politics…” Trump’s unhappiness with Phelan probably stems from 2023, when the then-Speaker brought impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Ken Paxton, a close Trump ally. President Trump went on to endorse Phelan’s primary opponent in his next election, although Phelan was able to manage a win in a closely-contested runoff.
Ultimately, however, Phelan made a choice not to run for Speaker: “I couldn’t ask the House Republicans to choose between me and President Trump.” Noting that he wasn’t a MAGA Republican, he felt like his confrontations with the President would make things difficult for his constituents (the members of the House of Representatives) if he continued as Speaker.
President Trump also dominated the discussion at “Living Document” panel, in which UT Law Professor Grove moderated a discussion with former Federal District Judges Royal Ferguson, Lee Yeakel, and Vanessa Gilmore.
The words “messy,” “wrong,” and “unprecedented” popped up again and again like literary motifs throughout the hourlong session. A recurring theme was the role of the “Shadow Docket” of the Supreme Court, which are often decided without full oral arguments and in unsigned form. President Trump has filed 20 “emergency applications” in seven months to the shadow docket, and the Court has, at least for now, seemingly expanded Trump’s control over the executive branch.
This has resulted in the overturning of many appellate and district-level decisions, the latter of which was particularly unsettling to the panel. “The District Court level,” noted Judge Ferguson, “is where the facts are settled.” The judge and the jury have the ability to assess the credibility of the witnesses and, at times, the defendant beyond merely reading a transcript. Overturning these cases with such regularity is, according to the panel, disregarding the role of fact assessment in reaching a verdict.
Equally as appalling to the panel have been the “attacks on the judiciary,” a point Judge Gilmore noted repeatedly. Top level executive branch officials have called for impeaching judges (something that has rarely occurred throughout history) or used harsh language to criticize judges for rulings adverse to the administration.
More alarming, however, are the increasing threats against judges. Last year there were more than 500 threats to federal judges, and the threats are becoming increasingly personal. In many cases, pizzas are being delivered to the judges’ homes, ordered by a “Daniel Anderl”–the name of a judge’s son who was murdered at his front door in 2020. Such “pizza doxxings” are a clear message to judges, a reminder of their vulnerability.
It is also a clear and concerning repudiation of the philosophical foundations on which the US Government was built, laid out in the Constitution and in Madison’s Federalist #51, in which he said, “it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others…”
On that discordant, we retreated to the Voltron Room at the Capitol Factory, where we listened to the soothing sounds of Texan singer Mollie Danel and contemplated the responsibilities of citizenship.
After months of anticipation and careful planning, we opened the doors to our Citizenship Celebration at The Woodlands Center–an evening that marked not just a milestone, but the launch of an exciting new chapter for our existing citizenship program.
The celebration brought together naturalized citizens, aspiring citizens, LEAP friends and alumni, all united by a shared support for those on their journey toward citizenship and the program.
What began in 2008 as a local initiative in Walker County has grown far beyond its original scope. Thanks to National Partnership for New Americans, the program now reaches into Montgomery County, creating new connections and expanding the community in meaningful ways.
One of the many goals for this celebration was to ensure every guest left with a meaningful takeaway. This is always easier when everyone shares a common purpose. For us, this growth brought new connections in the Montgomery area, including volunteers from Caney Creek High School…
…who joined SHSU students to create a welcoming, vibrant atmosphere for the guests as they arrive.
As guests arrived, they settled in with plates of delicious food–empanadas, beef satay, ceviche, and an array of other cultural dishes–setting the stage for an evening of culture and connections. The room itself was beautifully decorated with a patriotic theme symbolizing the civic pride and sense of belonging that come with citizenship.
The ceremony began with Professor Yawn, who welcomed attendees and explained how LEAP’s citizenship program is expanding beyond Walker County.
The audience included familiar faces like Gregoria McGuire and Roxana Woychesin, former course participants, alongside eager newcomers ready to begin their journey.
LEAP alumni–Brian Aldaco, Bianca Saldierna, Ademide Adedokun, and Megan Chapa–also in attendance, perfectly timed to coincide with LEAP’s upcoming 20th anniversary celebration and the launch of new initiatives.
I then had the chance to offer my own words of welcome — thanking everyone for their incredible support and emphasizing that this event was truly a celebration for all: those who had been naturalized, those beginning the journey, and those supporting this civic milestone.
Then came the moment I’d been looking forward to — introducing Christina Sato, who so graciously agreed to share her journey and beautiful words with us. Christina Sato is an accomplished actress, singer, and University of Texas at Austin graduate who interned for former U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and has built an impressive career bridging entertainment and public service.
Christina spoke beautifully about three important themes, with one particularly powerful message about the importance of an invitation…
…recalling that she first met Professor Yawn in an elevator, three years ago. That chance meeting, followed by some networking, led to the invitation to speak at this event.
She tied this concept perfectly to the crowd and their purpose, making everyone feel the significance of being present and being welcomed into community.
Her story was one of unexpected turns and beautiful detours. Sato shared how she began her career with aspirations in public service, only to find life taking her down different paths-through entertainment, through various roles and opportunities that she never initially imagined. Rather than viewing these changes as setbacks, she embraced them as part of life’s natural rhythm. Her journey wasn’t linear, and she owned that truth with grace and authenticity.
For the naturalized citizens in the room– many of whom had taken long, winding roads to reach that point–her story struck a personal note. For those still on their journey toward citizenship, her message offered hope, encouragement, and a reminder that every experience brings us closer to where we’re meant to be.
The evening then shifted to something wonderfully fun–Lotería! For those unfamiliar with this traditional game, it’s similar to bingo but with a uniquely cultural twist.
We played a couple of rounds, giving away prizes to lucky winners throughout the evening, with the help of volunteers Andrea Torres, Olivia Discon, and Laura Juarez Ordonez.
It was a beautiful reminder that while we gather for serious purposes – citizenship, community, growth – we also come together to celebrate, to play, and to enjoy each other’s company.
As the celebration concluded, we announced the next phase of our program: our Spring 2026 Citizenship Course. This course will be held on April 2nd, 9th, 16th, 23rd, and 30th at The Woodlands Center, to support immigrants as they work toward their citizenship, providing the resources, guidance, and encouragement they need to succeed.
A heartfelt thank-you to everyone who made this evening possible: thevolunteers and LEAP alumni whose ongoing support sustains the program, Christina Sato for generously sharing her time, inspiring story, and wisdom, and most importantly, the naturalized citizens and immigrants whose journeys continue to inspire this program and remind us of why it initially started.
Here’s to the journey ahead–and to all the events yet to come!
For more information about LEAP’s citizenship program or our upcoming Spring course, email Professor Mike Yawn at mikeyawn@shsu.edu.
The World Affairs Council and the Baker Institute for Public Policy welcomed William Burns, the 8th Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who provided an insightful and engaging discussion on the complexities of global affairs, drawing on his experiences in diplomacy, intelligence and leadership during some of the most pivotal moments in recent history.
During the networking session, we had the pleasure of reconnecting with Wendall Braniff, whose continued generosity and support at various WAC events have been invaluable. She introduced us to Vitalii Tarasiuk, the Consul General of Ukraine in Houston, who shared about his diplomatic career and offered advice for those pursuing careers in international affairs.
After an introduction by WAC CEO Maryanne Maldonado and WAC Director of Advancement Sandija Bayot, Ambassador David Satterfield took the microphone to moderate the event.
Director William Burns is one of the most distinguished American diplomats of the modern era. Over a career spanning more than three decades, he served under six U.S. presidents from both political parties, earning a reputation for integrity, strategic vision and effectiveness. He was the first career diplomat to lead the CIA as Director and previously served as Deputy Secretary of State, Ambassador to Russia and Jordan and in numerous senior roles at the State Department.
Throughout the discussion, Ambassador Burns reflected on the United States evolving role in a complex global landscape. Burns reflected on the challenge posed by Russia’s aggression and the damage Vladimir Putin has inflicted not only on Ukraine but on Russian society itself. He suggested that while Putin’s regime has entrenched authoritarianism and nationalism, its longevity is uncertain, as corruption, stagnation and battlefield losses erode both public confidence and elite unity. Burns cautioned against assuming rapid change after Putin, predicting a messy transition but holding hope that over time Russia could move beyond autocracy. Lastly, he noted that how the U.S. and its allies sustain support for Ukraine will shape global perception of American leadership for decades to come.
He described China under Xi Jinping as America’s most formidable long-term competitor, emphasizing the need for a disciplined strategy that balances confrontation, cooperation and competition while avoiding complacency in technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing. Turning to the Middle East, he recounted his efforts to negotiate ceasefires and hostages releases in Gaza, stressing that sustainable peace requires both humanitarian compassion and political will. Burns also discussed the fragility of global alliances, noting that America’s greatest comparative advantage lies in the trust of its partners, something that must be continually earned through reliability and measured leadership.
On domestic matters, he voiced concern over efforts to politicize public institutions, warning that retribution disguised as reform undermines the integrity of career civil servants and weakens U.S decision making.
Burns closed with advice for young professionals, encouraging them to pursue public service with integrity and courage. He concluded with a touch of humor and timeless wisdom from former Secretary of State James Baker, under whom he served: Baker’s “7 Ps – Proper Preparation plus Perspiration Prevents Piss Poor Performance” Emphasizing the importance of learning your craft, being prepared, and being ready for when the moment comes.
Nine students and former students with The Center for Law, Engagement, and Politics (LEAP) attended a screening of the 1922 silent horror film Nosferatu at the historic River Oaks Theatre in Houston, Texas. While this outing certainly carried the spirit of the post-Halloween season and the eerie charm associated with early cinematic horror, it also reflected the Center’s continued effort to expand students’ engagement with the humanities, exposure to diverse forms of storytelling, and expanded cultural horizons.
The River Oaks Theatre itself provided a fitting environment. Its historic charm and architecture evoke a theatrical experience that captures some of the magic of silent and golden-age cinema.
Enhancing the screening was a live musical performance by The Invincible Czars, who created the film’s soundtrack live on stage with instrumentation ranging from classical to experimental. Their approach complemented the film with sounds that provided humor, subtle tension, and dramatic intensity.
After the screening, the LEAP students were able to meet the band members and take photographs with the band, while also purchasing movie posters.
While the subject matter — a vampire narrative involving shadows, dread, and ancient evil — is unquestionably spooky, the evening itself reinforced a central purpose of LEAP: experiential learning that blends the artistic, the cultural, and the civic.
Movies like Nosferatu do not just entertain; they help illuminate how societies imagine danger, power, and the supernatural.
This outing offered students a unique opportunity to experience history, art, and performance simultaneously — in a way that was appropriately seasonal, academically rich, and wonderfully haunting.
After a long day of Moot Court competition and work that persisted late into the night, our LEAP competitors enjoyed the mercy of an extra hour of sleep, courtesy of Daylight Savings Time. But the sun rises even after the longest nights, and we–Madison Thurkettle, Allison Lindle, Katie Wilson, and our Day Two competitors, Ashton Droll and Madison Cawthon–hastened to the Shepard Broad College of Law to extend our Moot Court season.
A Time to Keep…
With admonishments to arrive no later than 9:30am, we arrived early, in time to witness the coin toss that would decide whether we were representing the petitioner or respondent.
Our competition was Connor Rust and Inanna Khansa from the University of Chicago, and winning the coin toss, they chose to represent the respondent–which was fine with us.
A Time to Build Up…
A win in this round would place us at the Preliminary Nationals, scheduled for Virginia in January. For Maddie, who wasn’t expecting to get this far, much of the pressure had been shed from her shoulders. Ashton, on the other hand, animated by what many judges described as “a passion for moot court,” felt the pressure and the need to win. Both, however, experienced the ups and downs of preparing for competition.
Both sensed immediately the elevated level of competition. “We could cite the record and the cases,” observed Droll, “but Rust and Khansa took it a step further. They cited the record and then cited cases within the cases.”
A Time to Speak, a Time to Keep Silence…
Nonetheless, Droll and Cawthon executed their best performances. Heeding the Biblical admonition that “a fool’s voice is known by a multitude of words,” they answered questions directly, demonstrating their knowledge of the cases and applying that knowledge judiciously and to the point. “They were,” noted Wilson, “more polished than they’ve been the entire Moot Court season.”
In the end, however, it wasn’t quite enough. Rust and Khansa edged out Droll and Cawthon on two ballots (one was decided by three points out of 1,600) and solidly on a third. Despite the loss, the team members’ outlook remained undimmed, happy with their portion, and equipped with a focus on a new season and a renewed sense of purpose.
Two Shall Withstand…
The finals pitted Anna Barker and Steven Abraham (University of Central Florida) and Christy Banker and Gaege Gobezie (Liberty University)–the latter of whom had taken the tournament’s first and second-place individual orator honors.
Facing a hot panel–which included the Dean of the Law School (Olympia Duhart), the Director of Advocacy Programs for the Shepard Broad College of Law (Joe Lester), and an animated Criminal Law Professor (Megan Chaney)–
…the four competitors showed impressive knowledge of the cases, verbal agility, and the enviable skill of anticipating the judges’ line of questioning and redirecting it. It was, LEAP students noted, a lesson to learn.
The contest was close, perhaps the closest of the tournament…
…with Anna Barker and Steve Abraham of the University of Central Florida edging Christy Banker and Gaege Gobezie of Liberty University. The match was decided by two points.
Every Man Should Eat and Drink…
With competitions behind us and much before us, we decided on a meal at Rocco’s Tacos, which was recommended by Orlando Magazine and Eater. The recommendation was well founded.
We began with guacamole (excellent), which had just the right mix of tomato, salt, and garlic; chips and a salsa sampler, with the salsa verde and the smoked salsa being the favorites; and sauteed shrimp, which were impressively tender and bursting with flavor. It was a good way to begin the meal.
Our entrees were equally impressive. Half of our group ordered salads, while Ashton sampled the cheese enchiladas (featuring creamy Chihuahuan cheese); Professor Yawn tried the veggie and pork tacos; and Cawthon explored the Chorizo tacos, featuring Cotija cheese.
The food was excellent and filling, and the time at the table offered a respite from a competition and an opportunity for reflection.
Patient in Spirit…
With the tournament receding into a remembrance of former things, we contemplated the transitional and cyclical nature of things.
Each of us has enjoyed a new experience on the trip, whether it be a new food experience, learning photography with a mirrorless camera, or simply our first travel without family in tow. For all of us, this was our first Moot Court competition.
And while it is natural to see a cohort go and a cohort come, four of our five competitors will still be at Sam Houston State University next year and–at least following the high of competition–are interested in participating again in Moot Court, renewing a cycle of education, experience, and exploration.
And with these reflections on the good of our labor, we returned to the hotel, where we looked forward to the sweet sleep of the hard working and to the start of a new day.
After a summer of study and two additional months of practice, LEAP’s Moot Court team made their way to Fort Lauderdale (which, in fairness to the title, is near Miami) for the Sunshine State Regional Moot Court Tournament–part of the American Moot Court Association’s annual national competition.
AMCA Board Member Ben Rathsam Kicking Things Off
The Moot Court Process
The Moot Court process has many moving parts, but the steps are straightforward:
Each team has two members, with one tackling the 14th amendment (equal protection) and one tackling the 1st amendment (speech);
Teams then register for one of 18 regional tournaments across the US;
Teams then compete in the tournament for which they registered, and if they qualify, they move on to a “Preliminary National Tournament” and, if they qualify again, the National Tournament.
Teams are evaluated on four broad categories: Knowledge, Courtroom Demeanor, Response to Questions, and the Clarity and Logic of the Argument.
Michael Dass from NSU
Moot Court at Sam Houston State University (SHSU)
SHSU begins its Moot Court involvement shortly after AMCA releases the Case Problem (May 1). Over the summer, Professor Mike Yawn teaches “How to Win in the Courtroom,” using the Case Problem (and the ancillary 20 other cases) as the curriculum, and culminating with live “hearings.”
In late August or early September, official tryouts are held, and students compete for team spots. The LEAP Center selected five participants this year, making up two teams and a “spare:” Team One is Madison Thurkettle and Allison Lindle; Team Two is Ashton Droll and Maddie Cawthon. A fifth student, Katie Wilson, made the team, but lacked a teammate.
All of these students committed to weekly practices during September and October, with the goal of being prepared for today’s tournament.
The Sunshine Tournament
The Shepard Broad College of Law at Nova Southeastern University hosted the Sunshine Tournament, giving 64 students the opportunity to travel; visit a law school; perform in front of judges, bailiffs, and tournament organizers; and meet other pre-law students from across the country. AMCA Representative Ben Rathsam introduced the event, and Shepard Broad Law Professor Marc Consalo provided additional guidance, helping orient the students, and focusing their minds.
Day One, to use a sport analogy, is the “regular season,” and it consists of three rounds for each team. The first round began at 2:00pm, with Thurkettle and Lindle representing the petitioner and competing at a team from Central Florida; Droll and Cawthon also represented the petitioner, and they competed against a team from Nova Southeastern University. In subsequent rounds, SHSU teams faced competitors from Stetson University, Benedictine College, Liberty University, and the University of Tampa.
Moot Court Self Care
Katie Wilson, although not competing this year, travelled with the team, proving herself an expert navigator, and a quick-learning photographer.
Competing
Although the students have been involved in more than a dozen formal practices and numerous individual practices, the real thing brings a fresh sense of nerves.
“For me, the first round was the worst,” noted Madison Thurkettle, a Junior at SHSU, and a first-time competitor in Moot Court, “and I was able to loosen up in the subsequent rounds.”
Allison Lindle, Thurkettle’s teammate, agreed: “The first round was nerves; the second round, we were able to see some success; and by the third round, we were hitting our stride.”
Only Known Photo of Thurkettle Smiling While at a Podium
For Ashton Droll, who did debate in high school, nerves weren’t a huge issue. But there was still the adapting to representing different parties in different rounds and learning the idiosyncrasies of the different judges. In Round One, for example, one judge gave Droll an average score of 87.5; another gave her an average score of 99.25.
At times, the judges’ feedback can be contradictory. One judge told Maddie Cawthon that she “sometimes got lost while answering questions.” The same round, a different judge told her: “Great responses to questions.” A frustrated Cawthon lamented: “they can’t both be correct.”
Outcomes
One of the outcomes of tournaments such as this is seeing the competition from other schools. Getting students out of the classroom and seeing high-achieving students from other schools is a key part of moot court, and in this setting, there were many strong students representing top universities across the nation.
For Lindle and Thurkettle, it was a steep learning curve, one punctuated by some near misses. On the final round, for example, they lost two ballots by one point each ballot. It was a tough round. Nonetheless, they both had strong showings. On one ballot, Thurkettle averaged a 98; on the same ballot, Lindle averaged a 97.5.
Droll and Cawthon similarly saw some close calls. Two of their ballot losses came from margins of 10 points or less (out of 1600), but they were in the running on every ballot–and this consistency helped them break into the Sweet 16. Indeed, they were seeded 11th out of 32 teams!
This was a victory not only for Droll and Cawthon, but for the entire SHSU delegation. As Katie Wilson noted, “I’ve spent the last couple of months with these girls, and it was rewarding to see them grow and have the opportunity to compete in front of real judges. I am already getting excited for next year’s case!”
Wrapping Up
But, of course, there is at least one more round in this year’s tournament for Droll and Cawthon, a prospect making for a long night (thankfully, Daylight Savings Time will add an hour…). But whatever that outcome, the tournament–and the organizers, judges, and volunteers–has provided the thrill and stress of competition, exposure to new places and people, and the opportunity for growth.
Ever wondered what it’s like to serve as a judge in your own community? The SHSU Pre-Law Society had the chance to find out firsthand during a moderated Q&A with Judge Devan Dawson, Municipal Judge for the City of Huntsville, and Judge Kim Webb, Justice of the Peace for San Jacinto County, Precinct 4.
From balancing private practice with public service to campaigning for elected office, both judges offered honest insight into the realities of serving at the local level and the unique paths that brought them to the bench.
Judge Devan Dawson, a Baylor Law alumna, shared how her path to law began unexpectedly. Originally an English major planning to teach, a family connection introduced her to the legal field, and she never looked back. Today, she divides her time between her private practice and her duties as a municipal judge, where she handles fine-only misdemeanors and civil cases. Her advice to aspiring law students was simple yet meaningful: “You can help people in countless ways, even something as small as a traffic ticket.”
Judge Kim Webb offered a different but equally inspiring journey. A graduate of Sam Houston State University and the University of Houston, she began her career in law enforcement and worked her way up to captain before pursuing public administration, and eventually, the bench. As a Justice of the Peace, she oversees fine-only misdemeanors, civil cases up to $20,000, inquests, and evictions. Judge Webb emphasized how women bring valuable communication and empathy skills to both law enforcement and the judiciary, qualities that strengthen fairness and trust within the community.
Above all, both judges reminded us that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, and that every person should leave their courtroom knowing they were treated fairly.
The students were inspired by their humility, perseverance, and commitment to public service. It was a reminder that pursuing law is not just about cases and codes, but about people, integrity, and making justice visible in every community we serve.
With that renewed sense of purpose, our Pre-Law Society turned their attention to organizational business.
and to the big issue of the night: elections. Ten candidates, both new and returning, presented thoughtful speeches about the positive changes they hoped to bring to the organization.
We are proud to introduce of our newly elected PLS Officers: VP of Marketing, Jackeline Balbuena;
VP of Finance/Treasurer, Nataly Elizondo;
…and Secretary, Madison Cawthon.
Congratulations to our new officers, and PLS is ready to make this an incredible year.
Center for Law, Engagement, and Politics 