I had dinner with a former student, Alex Keeling, in Washington, DC, over the summer. Alex is extremely intelligent, and leaves me in his dust. We spoke of the coming election, and he predicted a win for Clinton. I appreciated that, but did not want anything to seem so easy. It never is. Don't count your chickens before they hatch. . . etc. We spent several hours at a Afghan restaurant, talking politics. He works for the government, but was curious what a Trump presidency would look like. Me, I was worried. It didn't seem to phase him. This surprised me very much. What comes, comes. I could not wrap my mind around such a thought. When the election came and went, my daughters were very upset. My family was quietly excited. My friends were in shock. The world turned upside down.
We are now 100 days in to a presidency that defies all traditional logic. With all the lessons I shared about how government works, I am reminded why the social studies is an art, not a science. You can tell yourself that the world makes sense, that it can be quantified, but I am telling you right now, there is a human side to this world defies logic. Above everything, we strive to remain human. And, everyday we learn something knew about the human nature.
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Saturday, April 29, 2017
Friday, December 20, 2013
Duck Dynasty Faux Pas
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/gop-politicians-defend-39-duck-dynasty-39-star-184932178--abc-news-politics.html
So, Phil from "Duck Dynasty" stated his personal beliefs to a national magazine. Should the magazine have censored his comments, as they were possibly hurtful and damaging to his career? Did it benefit the magazine to ask questions that led him to make comments that were seen as crude and destructive? Who is responsible for his words? In this society, a free society, with freedom of speech and freedom of the press, Phil solely is responsible for his comments. What he says in an interview to the press is his responsibility. Once it is out of his mouth, the magazine has a duty to its own profits to print what might catch attention, regardless of the consequences to Phil and his own income source. No one would disagree with that.
Phil is entitled to his opinion. If this is how he feels, no one thinks they can truly change his heart. But, as a public figure, his words have power. When he makes a comment like what he did, comparing homosexuality to bestiality and multiple partners, his words carry more weight. If he said this in his church, a bar with his friends, or in his own home (without cameras rolling) he has every right to speak his mind. Unfortunately, when his thoughts become public, he is responsible for them. Again, no one attempted to censor him. No one has tried to block the publication of his words. What he said is inflammatory because we are in a time of change, and the nation is trying to find a way forward. The past is easy to go back to, because we know where we came from.
This issue is being framed as an attack on religion and on free speech, both protected in the Constitution. The only problem with this line of attack is that the Constitution was designed to protect individuals (through incorporation) and states (originally the purpose of the Bill of Rights) from federal intrusion in these areas. As an individual I am allowed to say what I choose without the government acting against me. I cannot, however, criticize another man without the threat of him acting against me. If I criticize my boss, he has the right to punish me. As a student, freedom of speech is limited somewhat. Students cannot cuss or disparage other students. There are numerous examples of freedom of speech carried out. But, it can only be protection from a public (government entity) punishing an individual or group. The government is not stepping in to restrict the thoughts or words of either Phil or other conservatives that may find comfort in his words. The government has remained silent on this. While private organizations (A + E is a private company) have spoken out about their disagreement with his words, GQ, A+E, GLAD, and the NAACP are all private organizations, and have as much right to publicly criticize his views, both public comments and religious views, as he does to criticize others. Ultimately the buyers money will decide who is right in this. It is not the choice of a few to misuse the Constitution to their own personal benefit.
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana governor, has expressed his dissatisfaction with the controversy by comparing it to Miley Cyrus. No one has censored Miley Cyrus, he argues, but they have a religious man like Phil. Miley Cyrus does not have a long term contract with a television company. She (I assume) has a contract with a recording company. That company found her performance at the VMAs beneficial financially to themselves. There was a lot of public outcry both from the mainstream media, the left and the right about Miley Cyrus' performance. But, record sales stayed high. In the case of Phil, there was outcry from many sources for his comments. The company that holds his contract (A+E) felt they wanted to distance themselves from this controversy. They chose to suspend his contract, and they had the contractual right to do so. If Miley were still working for Disney, presumably they would do the same. Miley was just working for a company that allowed greater latitude. That is the difference. This is and never was an issue of the First Amendment, and freedoms from government intrusion. It is the freedom of companies to choose what is in their own self interest. Please don't muddy the waters.
So, Phil from "Duck Dynasty" stated his personal beliefs to a national magazine. Should the magazine have censored his comments, as they were possibly hurtful and damaging to his career? Did it benefit the magazine to ask questions that led him to make comments that were seen as crude and destructive? Who is responsible for his words? In this society, a free society, with freedom of speech and freedom of the press, Phil solely is responsible for his comments. What he says in an interview to the press is his responsibility. Once it is out of his mouth, the magazine has a duty to its own profits to print what might catch attention, regardless of the consequences to Phil and his own income source. No one would disagree with that.
Phil is entitled to his opinion. If this is how he feels, no one thinks they can truly change his heart. But, as a public figure, his words have power. When he makes a comment like what he did, comparing homosexuality to bestiality and multiple partners, his words carry more weight. If he said this in his church, a bar with his friends, or in his own home (without cameras rolling) he has every right to speak his mind. Unfortunately, when his thoughts become public, he is responsible for them. Again, no one attempted to censor him. No one has tried to block the publication of his words. What he said is inflammatory because we are in a time of change, and the nation is trying to find a way forward. The past is easy to go back to, because we know where we came from.
This issue is being framed as an attack on religion and on free speech, both protected in the Constitution. The only problem with this line of attack is that the Constitution was designed to protect individuals (through incorporation) and states (originally the purpose of the Bill of Rights) from federal intrusion in these areas. As an individual I am allowed to say what I choose without the government acting against me. I cannot, however, criticize another man without the threat of him acting against me. If I criticize my boss, he has the right to punish me. As a student, freedom of speech is limited somewhat. Students cannot cuss or disparage other students. There are numerous examples of freedom of speech carried out. But, it can only be protection from a public (government entity) punishing an individual or group. The government is not stepping in to restrict the thoughts or words of either Phil or other conservatives that may find comfort in his words. The government has remained silent on this. While private organizations (A + E is a private company) have spoken out about their disagreement with his words, GQ, A+E, GLAD, and the NAACP are all private organizations, and have as much right to publicly criticize his views, both public comments and religious views, as he does to criticize others. Ultimately the buyers money will decide who is right in this. It is not the choice of a few to misuse the Constitution to their own personal benefit.
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana governor, has expressed his dissatisfaction with the controversy by comparing it to Miley Cyrus. No one has censored Miley Cyrus, he argues, but they have a religious man like Phil. Miley Cyrus does not have a long term contract with a television company. She (I assume) has a contract with a recording company. That company found her performance at the VMAs beneficial financially to themselves. There was a lot of public outcry both from the mainstream media, the left and the right about Miley Cyrus' performance. But, record sales stayed high. In the case of Phil, there was outcry from many sources for his comments. The company that holds his contract (A+E) felt they wanted to distance themselves from this controversy. They chose to suspend his contract, and they had the contractual right to do so. If Miley were still working for Disney, presumably they would do the same. Miley was just working for a company that allowed greater latitude. That is the difference. This is and never was an issue of the First Amendment, and freedoms from government intrusion. It is the freedom of companies to choose what is in their own self interest. Please don't muddy the waters.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Freedom Riders, PBS
Wow, I forgot this was coming on. What a great documentary. So powerful. The Civil Rights Movement could only gain that much steam with the power of cameras and television. Unfortunately, I missed parts, so I'll have to come back and watch it online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/freedomriders/watch
Here are some key points that caught my attention:
1. There is a segment where the story of the Riders is broadcast in the Communist Bloc. This is intriguing, because it put the abstract ideals America stands for in stark contrast a concrete reality shown to the world. That was a Cold War blow, and it is often something overlooked.
2. The prison system where the riders were sentenced, and the labor they were pressed in to for their challenging the system. Wow. The chain gang is an interesting experience.
3. Robert F. Kennedy (Archival):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/freedomriders/watch
Here are some key points that caught my attention:
1. There is a segment where the story of the Riders is broadcast in the Communist Bloc. This is intriguing, because it put the abstract ideals America stands for in stark contrast a concrete reality shown to the world. That was a Cold War blow, and it is often something overlooked.
2. The prison system where the riders were sentenced, and the labor they were pressed in to for their challenging the system. Wow. The chain gang is an interesting experience.
3. Robert F. Kennedy (Archival):
"A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all. Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right as well as reality." -- Wow. I am called to act. How do I act like I didn't hear this?
I am curious what others thought of the show.
Friday, September 7, 2012
The end of the innocence. . . Thanks Don Henley, and Conventioneers
Watching the key note speakers at both conventions has been fun. I don't remember it being as exciting when I was younger. Both had great choices and really got the crowd fired up. A couple of observations. Did the Democrats have a smaller arena, allowing it to look more crowded and full? It is a negative to see a stadium only half full on television, right, NFL? The use of video to provide a narrative story seemed fairly effective, and was heavily used at the DNC. Why so effective, you ask? Well, for one thing, it is a story and we like stories. It is rehearsed and contemplated and critiqued to death, so no accidental fumbles, Joe Biden/Eastwoodish. The imagery has a subtle and transfixative effect so that we attach good feelings to a message as we see positive images; carefully chosen, vetted images: the candidate with a baby, with veterans, with farmers. The videos tended not to argue facts, but spin a narrative, and so there is no angry statistics to confuse the audience or get the media in a frenzy providing accuracy reports. It provides a nice break from the monotony of talking heads and teleprompters.
The DNC spent a good deal of money bringing out signs that were preprinted with messages that reflected the speakers. This gave a sense of unity and cohesion that cameras played on. PBS commentators commented on the fact that workers spent part of the video, knowing cameras would focus on the video instead, passing out signs. Most famously, they passed out the "We (heart) Michelle" placards as Mrs. Obama was preparing to enter. The audience got very excited, and as the video came to an end, they were preprared to cheer the First Lady. Instead, they were greeted with a military mother. The talking head made notice of a vocal "Ohhhh....." that it wasn't Michelle coming out.
It was a tad disheartening to hear the booing about things from the audience. Maybe it is the fact that I am at a school that really doesn't boo opponents, but I find it rather low and classless. We are all still Americans, and it is self-destructive in my view. The same with the "USA! USA!" chants. Did you expect the other convention to cheer something else? "USSR! USSR!" or "Switzerland! Switzerland!" Again, we are all on the same team, but just differing views of the ball. We need to refocus and realize that we are stronger when united, and even in defeat, can remain respectful.
The DNC spent a good deal of money bringing out signs that were preprinted with messages that reflected the speakers. This gave a sense of unity and cohesion that cameras played on. PBS commentators commented on the fact that workers spent part of the video, knowing cameras would focus on the video instead, passing out signs. Most famously, they passed out the "We (heart) Michelle" placards as Mrs. Obama was preparing to enter. The audience got very excited, and as the video came to an end, they were preprared to cheer the First Lady. Instead, they were greeted with a military mother. The talking head made notice of a vocal "Ohhhh....." that it wasn't Michelle coming out.
It was a tad disheartening to hear the booing about things from the audience. Maybe it is the fact that I am at a school that really doesn't boo opponents, but I find it rather low and classless. We are all still Americans, and it is self-destructive in my view. The same with the "USA! USA!" chants. Did you expect the other convention to cheer something else? "USSR! USSR!" or "Switzerland! Switzerland!" Again, we are all on the same team, but just differing views of the ball. We need to refocus and realize that we are stronger when united, and even in defeat, can remain respectful.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Differences between speeches. . .
It is clear, after listening to Castro, the tone is different between the incumbent party and the challenging party. The challenging party has to focus on what their opponent has done wrong and what their candidate will do to fix it, but largely are free of a need for evidence, because they come with a fairly blank slate. They have never been president before (presumably). The incumbent (the sitting president) has the ability to put a positive spin on their own record, but also has the negative interpretation/spin on that same record. Romney's supporters had to be negative to rally support, but can only offer promises of what is to come. Running a private business is very different than being POTUS. 2016 will be super exciting, as both parties will be putting forward brand new candidates, if Obama wins. Obama, if he loses, won't run again in 2016, more than likely. Romney, if history pans out, will not run successfully for the candidacy in 2016. What a crazy system we have. Sadly, you get one shot at the national ticket, and if you fail in November, the party tends to push you aside. I cannot think of a major candiate that lost in Novemeber who came back four years later. Many who don't win the primary will return, but not the candidate for the general election.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
The Republican caucus was interesting. The speakers were not exciting, but telling. The crowd was even more telling. Take a look and see what you see of the audience. I tried to get the largest clump I could. The location is Shawnee Mission East. I wasn't able to make the Democratic caucus, and I kick myself. Crazy thing about having a kid's birthday. . .
And, oh yeah, Ron Paul showed up to speak at the second session. Below is a banner that spoke to those who paid for the caucus. The interesting part is when you get past the big name politicians, and you get to the PACs.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Halftime in America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGMOhOYvcw4
If you haven't seen "Halftime in America", check it out. Then, read on. . .
The first time I watched the video, when it first aired, Eastwood's unmistakable voice took me in. Whatever he is selling, I am buying. He is the epitome of manhood. I wanna be just like him when I grow up. Then comes the "Halftime" commentary. Wow. It didn't take long to put that together with Obama. What an interesting commercial. For the cost of production, air time, etc, there is no way that Chrysler didn't realize the dual meaning behind what they were saying.
What is interesting, above everything is how encompassing the commercial is. Every race, gender, and age is represented. Blue collar workers, middle class families, farmers/ranchers, firefighters. Everything that is prototypically American is in this video. A black man dropping his kids off at school. A white suburbanite mother driving with her daughter. What a powerful message this conveys on so many levels.
The protest scenes are from Wisconsin, against Governor Brown, in support of the unions. The talking head (Wendt sounds off) I haven't been able to figure out yet, and would love some insight. But, at first instinct, it made me think Bill O'Reilly. It was interesting that the image was shot from a television, giving the impression that the commercial viewer was watching this on television, disconnecting the viewer further.
Is the commercial partisan? Or does it just happen to work on several levels? Does it matter if it is political, because isn't that ok under Citizen's United? Ok, maybe that is a bit of a stretch, but. . .
It is interesting to see products becoming more political. Coca-Cola's attempt to save the Polar Bear is interesting, after the fight between environmentalists and the Bush Administration a few years ago.
So, you decide. Is this commercial politicized? Did it cross the line? Write up your thoughts in the comments.
Here are some responses that popped up when I googled for the commercial:
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/02/06/clint-eastwood-chrysler-team-for-halftime-in-america-spot/
I like this one for telling both sides.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/karl-rove-offended-by-clint-eastwoods-chrysler-ad/2012/02/06/gIQAYt3HuQ_blog.html
If you haven't seen "Halftime in America", check it out. Then, read on. . .
The first time I watched the video, when it first aired, Eastwood's unmistakable voice took me in. Whatever he is selling, I am buying. He is the epitome of manhood. I wanna be just like him when I grow up. Then comes the "Halftime" commentary. Wow. It didn't take long to put that together with Obama. What an interesting commercial. For the cost of production, air time, etc, there is no way that Chrysler didn't realize the dual meaning behind what they were saying.
What is interesting, above everything is how encompassing the commercial is. Every race, gender, and age is represented. Blue collar workers, middle class families, farmers/ranchers, firefighters. Everything that is prototypically American is in this video. A black man dropping his kids off at school. A white suburbanite mother driving with her daughter. What a powerful message this conveys on so many levels.
The protest scenes are from Wisconsin, against Governor Brown, in support of the unions. The talking head (Wendt sounds off) I haven't been able to figure out yet, and would love some insight. But, at first instinct, it made me think Bill O'Reilly. It was interesting that the image was shot from a television, giving the impression that the commercial viewer was watching this on television, disconnecting the viewer further.
Is the commercial partisan? Or does it just happen to work on several levels? Does it matter if it is political, because isn't that ok under Citizen's United? Ok, maybe that is a bit of a stretch, but. . .
It is interesting to see products becoming more political. Coca-Cola's attempt to save the Polar Bear is interesting, after the fight between environmentalists and the Bush Administration a few years ago.
So, you decide. Is this commercial politicized? Did it cross the line? Write up your thoughts in the comments.
Here are some responses that popped up when I googled for the commercial:
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/02/06/clint-eastwood-chrysler-team-for-halftime-in-america-spot/
I like this one for telling both sides.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/karl-rove-offended-by-clint-eastwoods-chrysler-ad/2012/02/06/gIQAYt3HuQ_blog.html
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Initial reaction to State of the Union
1. Wow, he came out angry and swinging. Swinging somewhat at the ghost of Bush, which is swinging at the wind, but also against the Congress. He did swing a few times at the Republicans, but just as likely to blame the whole body. Jonathan Karl called it controversial and confrontational, so that the Republicans left quickly.
2. Not surprised by the love of Gabby Giffords. He almost seemed lost in the hug at the beginning. He was ready to pull back, she wasn't. The place cleared out quickly when he was leaving. Lot's of folks vacated quickly, and not as many stayed for fist bumps and hugs.
3. He brought his military with his wife. Traditionally, it is an enlisted person. This year, it was an Army Sergeant, but I couldn't tell her unit and MOS. She was decorated, though, and has been overseas for at least a year. Interesting that he didn't introduce her. Full bird Colonel behind Michelle. Also, staying on the military, the Joint Chiefs all showed up, but Odierno was so big, that they had to push the other three to the back row. Guys huge. . .
4. Walking in, you see the big wigs in the parties. Eric Cantor, Majority leader in the House, followed by his Whip, Kevin McCarthy. Mitch McConnell didn't seem to be in the line to walk in, but Harry Reid was.
5. The Supreme Court brought the moderate and liberal wing. The die hard conservatives boycotted, except for the Chief Justice. Sotomayor was the only liberal not to show.
6. People arrived for seats at 815 AM. That is a long wait. They had to be in seats they wanted at 530 pm, and could reserve them.
7. The young woman that was issued as a key to the relationship between companies and colleges was an interesting choice. Her hairstyle was lacking and she had heavy tattoos on her neck visible to the camera. The lip piercing added to this. It struck me because she wasn't necessarily a classical camera ready image. You have to admit, the administration did not ask her to change for the camera.
8. The president asked the states to raise the graduation age to 18 or graduation. That is huge, but is only a request. He has no power to do much in this way.
9. The joke about spilled milk was more of a classic Obama. It should have gotten more laughs, but I think his speech was enough of a challenge and harbringer of the age. Why can't -- timing -- Obama tell a joke?
10. There were several times when the audience attempted to clap and he talked over them, and in one case, he silenced the applause to continue his talk. He took control of the audience rather than seeking the easy accolades.
11. Rigid ideologies vs. common sense. Hard to fight that. Streamline the bureaucracy, how do you fight that? The Republicans will have a hard time spinning that against Obama.
12. The issue of Iran and the use of the military: The military got 100% support of the crowd. McCraven, the Navy Seal, behind Michelle Obama, is the head of Special Operations. He is the guy in charge of the operation that took out Osama. He was on the top five list for Time's Person of the Year. Interesting background.
13. Obama mentioned his former opponents, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Bush carryover. Geithner was another carryover. Hillary seemed to be the cabinet member that Obama spent the most time with after the speech. Sebelius wasn't even done with him when he walked past.
14. Ok, what happened to John Kerry's face.
2. Not surprised by the love of Gabby Giffords. He almost seemed lost in the hug at the beginning. He was ready to pull back, she wasn't. The place cleared out quickly when he was leaving. Lot's of folks vacated quickly, and not as many stayed for fist bumps and hugs.
3. He brought his military with his wife. Traditionally, it is an enlisted person. This year, it was an Army Sergeant, but I couldn't tell her unit and MOS. She was decorated, though, and has been overseas for at least a year. Interesting that he didn't introduce her. Full bird Colonel behind Michelle. Also, staying on the military, the Joint Chiefs all showed up, but Odierno was so big, that they had to push the other three to the back row. Guys huge. . .
4. Walking in, you see the big wigs in the parties. Eric Cantor, Majority leader in the House, followed by his Whip, Kevin McCarthy. Mitch McConnell didn't seem to be in the line to walk in, but Harry Reid was.
5. The Supreme Court brought the moderate and liberal wing. The die hard conservatives boycotted, except for the Chief Justice. Sotomayor was the only liberal not to show.
6. People arrived for seats at 815 AM. That is a long wait. They had to be in seats they wanted at 530 pm, and could reserve them.
7. The young woman that was issued as a key to the relationship between companies and colleges was an interesting choice. Her hairstyle was lacking and she had heavy tattoos on her neck visible to the camera. The lip piercing added to this. It struck me because she wasn't necessarily a classical camera ready image. You have to admit, the administration did not ask her to change for the camera.
8. The president asked the states to raise the graduation age to 18 or graduation. That is huge, but is only a request. He has no power to do much in this way.
9. The joke about spilled milk was more of a classic Obama. It should have gotten more laughs, but I think his speech was enough of a challenge and harbringer of the age. Why can't -- timing -- Obama tell a joke?
10. There were several times when the audience attempted to clap and he talked over them, and in one case, he silenced the applause to continue his talk. He took control of the audience rather than seeking the easy accolades.
11. Rigid ideologies vs. common sense. Hard to fight that. Streamline the bureaucracy, how do you fight that? The Republicans will have a hard time spinning that against Obama.
12. The issue of Iran and the use of the military: The military got 100% support of the crowd. McCraven, the Navy Seal, behind Michelle Obama, is the head of Special Operations. He is the guy in charge of the operation that took out Osama. He was on the top five list for Time's Person of the Year. Interesting background.
13. Obama mentioned his former opponents, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Bush carryover. Geithner was another carryover. Hillary seemed to be the cabinet member that Obama spent the most time with after the speech. Sebelius wasn't even done with him when he walked past.
14. Ok, what happened to John Kerry's face.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Guess who's hiring. . .
Driving home from a pack meeting tonight, I flipped on the radio. An attractive, young (early 20s), female voice came on the radio. "I serve my country by traveling the world but I can't tell my friends and family where I am going or what I am doing." The voice catches your ear, and then you hear an interesting job pitch. Apparently, the CIA is hiring and they believe the best target audience for their work is listening to the radio. Interesting. About seven years ago, they made a lot attention by going out to college campus to recruit at job fairs at major name schools. Now, they are aiming for the masses. Having seen the commercials for Columbiana, it is intriguing that they chose the voice over that they did. Who is the target audience? And what does it say for our national secuity system when we are seeking help on broadcast radio? What genre of music was the station? Country. 104.3. Interesting.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Obama vs. Education
Obama speech to students draws conservative ire
By LIBBY QUAID and LINDA STEWART BALL, Associated Press Writers Libby Quaid And Linda Stewart Ball, Associated Press Writers 32 mins ago
DALLAS – President Barack Obama's back-to-school address next week was supposed to be a feel-good story for an administration battered over its health care agenda. Now Republican critics are calling it an effort to foist a political agenda on children, creating yet another confrontation with the White House.
Obama plans to speak directly to students Tuesday about the need to work hard and stay in school. His address will be shown live on the White House Web site and on C-SPAN at noon EDT, a time when classrooms across the country will be able to tune in.
Schools don't have to show it. But districts across the country have been inundated with phone calls from parents and are struggling to address the controversy that broke out after Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent a letter to principals urging schools to watch.
Districts in states including Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin have decided not to show the speech to students. Others are still thinking it over or are letting parents have their kids opt out.
Some conservatives, driven by radio pundits and bloggers, are urging schools and parents to boycott the address. They say Obama is using the opportunity to promote a political agenda and is overstepping the boundaries of federal involvement in schools.
"As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education — it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality," said Oklahoma state Sen. Steve Russell. "This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
Arizona state schools superintendent Tom Horne, a Republican, said lesson plans for teachers created by Obama's Education Department "call for a worshipful rather than critical approach."
The White House plans to release the speech online Monday so parents can read it. He will deliver the speech at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Va.
"I think it's really unfortunate that politics has been brought into this," White House deputy policy director Heather Higginbottom said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"It's simply a plea to students to really take their learning seriously. Find out what they're good at. Set goals. And take the school year seriously."
She noted that President George H.W. Bush made a similar address to schools in 1991. Like Obama, Bush drew criticism, with Democrats accusing the Republican president of making the event into a campaign commercial.
Critics are particularly upset about lesson plans the administration created to accompany the speech. The lesson plans, available online, originally recommended having students "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."
The White House revised the plans Wednesday to say students could "write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals."
"That was inartfully worded, and we corrected it," Higginbottom said.
In the Dallas suburb of Plano, Texas, the 54,000-student school district is not showing the 15- to 20-minute address but will make the video available later.
PTA council president Cara Mendelsohn said Obama is "cutting out the parent" by speaking to kids during school hours.
"Why can't a parent be watching this with their kid in the evening?" Mendelsohn said. "Because that's what makes a powerful statement, when a parent is sitting there saying, 'This is what I dream for you. This is what I want you to achieve.'"
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, said in an interview with the AP that he's "certainly not going to advise anybody not to send their kids to school that day."
"Hearing the president speak is always a memorable moment," he said.
But he also said he understood where the criticism was coming from.
"Nobody seems to know what he's going to be talking about," Perry said. "Why didn't he spend more time talking to the local districts and superintendents, at least give them a heads-up about it?"
Several other Texas districts have decided not to show the speech, although the district in Houston is leaving the decision up to individual school principals. In suburban Houston, the Cypress-Fairbanks district planned to show the address and has had its social studies teachers assemble a curriculum and activities for students.
"If someone objected, we would not force them to listen to the speech," spokeswoman Kelli Durham said.
In Wisconsin, the Green Bay school district decided not to show the speech live and to let teachers decide individually whether to show it later.
In Florida, GOP chairman Jim Greer released a statement that he was "absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology."
Despite his rhetoric, two of the larger Florida districts, Miami-Dade and Hillsborough, plan to have classes watch the speech. Students whose parents object will not have to watch.
"We're extending the same courtesy to the president as we do with any elected official that wants to enter our schools," said Linda Cobbe, a Hillsborough schools spokeswoman. Cobbe said the district, which includes Tampa, has gotten calls from upset parents but said officials don't think the White House is trying to force politics on kids.
The Minnesota Association of School Administrators is recommending against disrupting the first day of school to show the speech, but Minnesota's biggest teachers' union is urging schools to show it.
Quincy, Ill., schools decided Thursday not to show the speech. Superintendent Lonny Lemon said phone calls "hit like a load of bricks" on Wednesday.
One Idaho school superintendent, Murray Dalgleish of Council, urged people not to rush to judgment.
"Is the president dictating to these kids? I don't think so," Dalgleish said. "He's trying to get out the same message we're trying to get out, which is, `You are in charge of your education.'"
By LIBBY QUAID and LINDA STEWART BALL, Associated Press Writers Libby Quaid And Linda Stewart Ball, Associated Press Writers 32 mins ago
DALLAS – President Barack Obama's back-to-school address next week was supposed to be a feel-good story for an administration battered over its health care agenda. Now Republican critics are calling it an effort to foist a political agenda on children, creating yet another confrontation with the White House.
Obama plans to speak directly to students Tuesday about the need to work hard and stay in school. His address will be shown live on the White House Web site and on C-SPAN at noon EDT, a time when classrooms across the country will be able to tune in.
Schools don't have to show it. But districts across the country have been inundated with phone calls from parents and are struggling to address the controversy that broke out after Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent a letter to principals urging schools to watch.
Districts in states including Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin have decided not to show the speech to students. Others are still thinking it over or are letting parents have their kids opt out.
Some conservatives, driven by radio pundits and bloggers, are urging schools and parents to boycott the address. They say Obama is using the opportunity to promote a political agenda and is overstepping the boundaries of federal involvement in schools.
"As far as I am concerned, this is not civics education — it gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality," said Oklahoma state Sen. Steve Russell. "This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
Arizona state schools superintendent Tom Horne, a Republican, said lesson plans for teachers created by Obama's Education Department "call for a worshipful rather than critical approach."
The White House plans to release the speech online Monday so parents can read it. He will deliver the speech at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Va.
"I think it's really unfortunate that politics has been brought into this," White House deputy policy director Heather Higginbottom said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"It's simply a plea to students to really take their learning seriously. Find out what they're good at. Set goals. And take the school year seriously."
She noted that President George H.W. Bush made a similar address to schools in 1991. Like Obama, Bush drew criticism, with Democrats accusing the Republican president of making the event into a campaign commercial.
Critics are particularly upset about lesson plans the administration created to accompany the speech. The lesson plans, available online, originally recommended having students "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."
The White House revised the plans Wednesday to say students could "write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals."
"That was inartfully worded, and we corrected it," Higginbottom said.
In the Dallas suburb of Plano, Texas, the 54,000-student school district is not showing the 15- to 20-minute address but will make the video available later.
PTA council president Cara Mendelsohn said Obama is "cutting out the parent" by speaking to kids during school hours.
"Why can't a parent be watching this with their kid in the evening?" Mendelsohn said. "Because that's what makes a powerful statement, when a parent is sitting there saying, 'This is what I dream for you. This is what I want you to achieve.'"
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, said in an interview with the AP that he's "certainly not going to advise anybody not to send their kids to school that day."
"Hearing the president speak is always a memorable moment," he said.
But he also said he understood where the criticism was coming from.
"Nobody seems to know what he's going to be talking about," Perry said. "Why didn't he spend more time talking to the local districts and superintendents, at least give them a heads-up about it?"
Several other Texas districts have decided not to show the speech, although the district in Houston is leaving the decision up to individual school principals. In suburban Houston, the Cypress-Fairbanks district planned to show the address and has had its social studies teachers assemble a curriculum and activities for students.
"If someone objected, we would not force them to listen to the speech," spokeswoman Kelli Durham said.
In Wisconsin, the Green Bay school district decided not to show the speech live and to let teachers decide individually whether to show it later.
In Florida, GOP chairman Jim Greer released a statement that he was "absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology."
Despite his rhetoric, two of the larger Florida districts, Miami-Dade and Hillsborough, plan to have classes watch the speech. Students whose parents object will not have to watch.
"We're extending the same courtesy to the president as we do with any elected official that wants to enter our schools," said Linda Cobbe, a Hillsborough schools spokeswoman. Cobbe said the district, which includes Tampa, has gotten calls from upset parents but said officials don't think the White House is trying to force politics on kids.
The Minnesota Association of School Administrators is recommending against disrupting the first day of school to show the speech, but Minnesota's biggest teachers' union is urging schools to show it.
Quincy, Ill., schools decided Thursday not to show the speech. Superintendent Lonny Lemon said phone calls "hit like a load of bricks" on Wednesday.
One Idaho school superintendent, Murray Dalgleish of Council, urged people not to rush to judgment.
"Is the president dictating to these kids? I don't think so," Dalgleish said. "He's trying to get out the same message we're trying to get out, which is, `You are in charge of your education.'"
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Supreme Court facing the issue of Torture
Tracking new cases: Torture case returns
from SCOTUSblog by Lyle Denniston
NOTE: From time to time, the blog will examine significant new cases as they are filed at the Supreme Court. This post is one in that series. Some of these cases very likely will appear later in the blog’s Petitions to Watch feature when the Court is ready to consider them.
———————-
UPDATE: The case has been docketed as 09-227.
Lawyers for four Britons who formerly were held at Guantanamo Bay returned to the Supreme Court on Monday, seeking the first ruling by the Justices on claims of torture of terrorism suspects by U.S. agents. The new petition asked the Court to rule that the Constitution protects those held by the U.S. military or intelligence agencies from being tortured or abused, and to declare that a federal law protects them from discrimination based on their Muslim religion. They are challenging an April ruling by the D.C. Ciruit Court, rejecting for a second time their constitutional and legal challenges. The case is Rasul, et al., v. Myers, et al. , not yet assigned a docket number.
The Circuit Court, after once ruling that detainees had no constitutional rights, avoided any new ruling on the Britons’ constitutional claism after the case had been sent back to it by the Supreme Court last December. The Justices told the lower court to reconsider its prior decision in the wake of the Court’s 2008 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, establishing a constitutional right for Guantanamo prisoners to challenge their captivity.
Instead, the Circuit Court panel in April responded by throwing out the case this time based on a finding of qualified immunity for former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and ten senior military officers sued in the case. The panel said it was taking an option created by the Supreme Court in another case last January to bypass a constitutional ruling and instead focus on officials’ immunity claim.
Whatever rights detainees might have as a result of the Boumediene ruling, that ruling came four years after the Britons had been released from Guantanamo, the Circuit Court concluded. It also renewed its earkuer ruling that the Britons could not claim religious bias under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because they were not ”persons” within the Act’s meaning.
The new Circuit Court decision, the Britons claimed on Monday , was a “manifest refusal to abide by this Court’s mandate and give due effect to Boumediene on the constitutional issues raised in this case.” The Justices, they argued, must “affirm the Court’s authority and compel an inferior court to abide by its mandate.”
The petition, though, added that there were “even more compelling issues which demand this Court;s attention.” Those, it said, were “whether detainees imprisoned the United States at Guantanamo have a right to be free from abuse and humiliation in the practice of their religion, whether Guantanamo detainees have a constitutional right to be free from torture, and whether public officials who knowingly violate these rights can escape accountability for their conduct by raising the shield of qualified immunity when they cannot assert this defense in good faith.”
“Torture and religious humilation of Muslim detainees at Guantanmo stands as a uniquely shameful episode in our history,” the Britons said. “This petition enables the Court to remedy that stain on the moral authority of our nation and its laws, to overrule an obdurately insupportable exercise in statutory construction that effectively renders these [detainees], and other other detainees at Gujantnamo, non-persons, and to facilitate accountability for these terrible acts.”
The petition argued that the federal government had chosen the detention site at Guantanamo Bay “in a cynical attempt to avoid acocuntability for conduct that had long been held unconstitutional when it occureed in U.S. prisons. But Guantanamo is not a Hobbesian enclave where [officials] could violate clear prohibitions on their conduct imposed by statute and regulations and then point to a purported constitutional void as a basis for immunity.”
The government officials sued in the case will have an opportunity to respond before the Justices act on the new appeal. Previously, the Obama Administration had opposed the Britons’ lawsuit when the case was being considered anew by the Circuit Court following the case’s return from the Supreme Court.
By coincidence, the new torture case reached the Supreme Court on the same day that Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr., announced that he was ordering a preliminary inquiry “into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations.” He said it was too soon to say whether there would actually be any prosecutions resulting from the probe. His statement can be found here. It is unclear whether that investigation will cover claims of abuse at Guantanamo, as opposed to Central Intelligence Agency “black sites” in other countries.
from SCOTUSblog by Lyle Denniston
NOTE: From time to time, the blog will examine significant new cases as they are filed at the Supreme Court. This post is one in that series. Some of these cases very likely will appear later in the blog’s Petitions to Watch feature when the Court is ready to consider them.
———————-
UPDATE: The case has been docketed as 09-227.
Lawyers for four Britons who formerly were held at Guantanamo Bay returned to the Supreme Court on Monday, seeking the first ruling by the Justices on claims of torture of terrorism suspects by U.S. agents. The new petition asked the Court to rule that the Constitution protects those held by the U.S. military or intelligence agencies from being tortured or abused, and to declare that a federal law protects them from discrimination based on their Muslim religion. They are challenging an April ruling by the D.C. Ciruit Court, rejecting for a second time their constitutional and legal challenges. The case is Rasul, et al., v. Myers, et al. , not yet assigned a docket number.
The Circuit Court, after once ruling that detainees had no constitutional rights, avoided any new ruling on the Britons’ constitutional claism after the case had been sent back to it by the Supreme Court last December. The Justices told the lower court to reconsider its prior decision in the wake of the Court’s 2008 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, establishing a constitutional right for Guantanamo prisoners to challenge their captivity.
Instead, the Circuit Court panel in April responded by throwing out the case this time based on a finding of qualified immunity for former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and ten senior military officers sued in the case. The panel said it was taking an option created by the Supreme Court in another case last January to bypass a constitutional ruling and instead focus on officials’ immunity claim.
Whatever rights detainees might have as a result of the Boumediene ruling, that ruling came four years after the Britons had been released from Guantanamo, the Circuit Court concluded. It also renewed its earkuer ruling that the Britons could not claim religious bias under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because they were not ”persons” within the Act’s meaning.
The new Circuit Court decision, the Britons claimed on Monday , was a “manifest refusal to abide by this Court’s mandate and give due effect to Boumediene on the constitutional issues raised in this case.” The Justices, they argued, must “affirm the Court’s authority and compel an inferior court to abide by its mandate.”
The petition, though, added that there were “even more compelling issues which demand this Court;s attention.” Those, it said, were “whether detainees imprisoned the United States at Guantanamo have a right to be free from abuse and humiliation in the practice of their religion, whether Guantanamo detainees have a constitutional right to be free from torture, and whether public officials who knowingly violate these rights can escape accountability for their conduct by raising the shield of qualified immunity when they cannot assert this defense in good faith.”
“Torture and religious humilation of Muslim detainees at Guantanmo stands as a uniquely shameful episode in our history,” the Britons said. “This petition enables the Court to remedy that stain on the moral authority of our nation and its laws, to overrule an obdurately insupportable exercise in statutory construction that effectively renders these [detainees], and other other detainees at Gujantnamo, non-persons, and to facilitate accountability for these terrible acts.”
The petition argued that the federal government had chosen the detention site at Guantanamo Bay “in a cynical attempt to avoid acocuntability for conduct that had long been held unconstitutional when it occureed in U.S. prisons. But Guantanamo is not a Hobbesian enclave where [officials] could violate clear prohibitions on their conduct imposed by statute and regulations and then point to a purported constitutional void as a basis for immunity.”
The government officials sued in the case will have an opportunity to respond before the Justices act on the new appeal. Previously, the Obama Administration had opposed the Britons’ lawsuit when the case was being considered anew by the Circuit Court following the case’s return from the Supreme Court.
By coincidence, the new torture case reached the Supreme Court on the same day that Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr., announced that he was ordering a preliminary inquiry “into whether federal laws were violated in connection with the interrogation of specific detainees at overseas locations.” He said it was too soon to say whether there would actually be any prosecutions resulting from the probe. His statement can be found here. It is unclear whether that investigation will cover claims of abuse at Guantanamo, as opposed to Central Intelligence Agency “black sites” in other countries.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Should the Filibuster be put to Rest?
The filibuster is obstructive, anachronistic, and undemocratic. It's time to kill it off for good.
by Matthew Yglesias
The Silenced Majority
In March 2005, Senator Harry Reid, the leader of the Democratic Party’s then-minority in the Senate, engaged in some legislative brinkmanship. If the Republicans went through with a dastardly plan they had devised, he warned, “the majority should not expect to receive cooperation from the minority in the conduct of Senate business … even on routine matters.” Senator Ted Kennedy hailed Reid’s stand and called on Republicans to “obey the rule of law and abandon their reckless threat to use the ‘nuclear option.’”
What was the outrageous threat that Democrats were so eager to block? Some nefarious Patriot Act provision? A bill authorizing torture, or secret surveillance? No. The Republicans, as you may recall, wanted to change the Senate rules to prevent Democrats from blocking judicial nominees by using the filibuster, a parliamentary procedure in which a minority of senators can endlessly extend debate to prevent an issue from being voted on. Eventually, a group of legislators known as the “Gang of 14”—seven Democrats and seven Republicans—struck a deal on the nominations, thus saving the filibuster and forestalling any changes to the Senate rules, and the dispute ended.
But Democrats were right to look on the nuclear option skeptically, and not because the proposed change was “reckless.” Rather, it didn’t go far enough. Every word the Republicans said about the nominees’ deserving an up-or-down vote was perfectly true—and their argument applies not just to judicial nominees, but to every other case in which the filibuster subverts the will of the majority.
Democrats no doubt see that more clearly today. Since 2006, when they won majorities in both the House and the Senate, their approval ratings have plummeted, in large part because moderates and liberals have noticed their inability to get much of anything done. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to blame “the obstructionism of the Republicans,” but realistically, one can hardly blame Senate Republicans for obstructing legislation they oppose. The fault lies not with the obstructionists, but with the procedural rule that facilitates obstruction. In short, with the filibuster—a dubious tradition that encourages senators to act as spoilers rather than legislators, and that has locked the political system into semipermanent paralysis by ensuring that important decisions are endlessly deferred. It should be done away with.
Back in 2005, Senate Democrats seeking to block the GOP majority portrayed the filibuster as a pillar of America’s democratic tradition. In fact, it’s no such thing. The original rules of the Senate allowed a simple majority of legislators to make a motion to end debate. In 1806, at the recommendation of Aaron Burr, those rules were amended to allow for unlimited argument—not to create a countermajoritarian check on legislation, but because the motion had been so rarely invoked that it “could not be necessary.” This decision paved the way for the modern filibuster. But no one actually attempted to use it until 1837, when a minority block of Whig senators prolonged debate to prevent Andrew Jackson’s allies from expunging a resolution of censure against him. The unlimited-debate rule eventually became so cumbersome that senators made attempts at reform in 1850, 1873, 1883, and 1890, all unsuccessful. Finally, in 1917, the Senate adopted a rule allowing a two-thirds supermajority to cut off debate.
Under this rule, in the years that followed, segregationists mounted a series of filibusters meant to block civil-rights legislation. In 1922, the mere threat of the procedure was enough to torpedo a bill to prevent lynchings. In 1946, a filibuster undermined a bill by Senator Dennis Chavez of New Mexico intended to block workplace discrimination. Strom Thurmond set the record for longest individual filibuster—at more than 24 hours—in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to block the relatively mild Civil Rights Act of 1957. And the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 secured a filibuster-proof majority only after 57 days of debate and substantial watering down.
By 1975, the Senate was finally prepared for reform. But rather than eliminate the filibuster entirely and return to majority rule, the members merely diluted it, reducing the number of votes required to end debate from 67 to 60.
Since then, filibustering has only grown more frequent. In the 1960s, no Congress had more than seven filibusters. In the early 1990s, the 102nd Congress witnessed 47, more than had occurred throughout the entire 19th century. And that was not an especially filibuster-prone Congress—each subsequent one has seen progressively more. The 110th Congress, which just ended, featured 137.
The minority party of the day will inevitably defend such obstruction as a crucial bulwark of liberty. During the judicial-confirmations fight, the liberal Interfaith Alliance warned that a filibuster-free Senate “would leave the majority with the power to reign with absolute tyranny.” But the risk of one-party rule shouldn’t be exaggerated. Majority voting works fine for democracies around the world, and the need for legislation to pass through two separately elected houses of Congress and be signed into law by the president still gives our government more chances to veto objectionable bills than most other countries allow for.
In recent decades, periods of one-party rule have been rare and brief. The only circumstances under which party-line legislation is even a theoretical possibility for any length of time would be when the country feels that the party in power is doing a decent job. And that, one would think, is exactly the sort of situation in which an extended period of one-party rule might be deemed unobjectionable. The filibuster is hardly the only impediment to legislative change, but it’s the one least justified by our Constitution and least supported by our values. And eliminating it would drastically reduce excuses for inaction—the one thing Congress has produced in abundance in recent years.
The URL for this page is http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200812u/filibuster
by Matthew Yglesias
The Silenced Majority
In March 2005, Senator Harry Reid, the leader of the Democratic Party’s then-minority in the Senate, engaged in some legislative brinkmanship. If the Republicans went through with a dastardly plan they had devised, he warned, “the majority should not expect to receive cooperation from the minority in the conduct of Senate business … even on routine matters.” Senator Ted Kennedy hailed Reid’s stand and called on Republicans to “obey the rule of law and abandon their reckless threat to use the ‘nuclear option.’”
What was the outrageous threat that Democrats were so eager to block? Some nefarious Patriot Act provision? A bill authorizing torture, or secret surveillance? No. The Republicans, as you may recall, wanted to change the Senate rules to prevent Democrats from blocking judicial nominees by using the filibuster, a parliamentary procedure in which a minority of senators can endlessly extend debate to prevent an issue from being voted on. Eventually, a group of legislators known as the “Gang of 14”—seven Democrats and seven Republicans—struck a deal on the nominations, thus saving the filibuster and forestalling any changes to the Senate rules, and the dispute ended.
But Democrats were right to look on the nuclear option skeptically, and not because the proposed change was “reckless.” Rather, it didn’t go far enough. Every word the Republicans said about the nominees’ deserving an up-or-down vote was perfectly true—and their argument applies not just to judicial nominees, but to every other case in which the filibuster subverts the will of the majority.
Democrats no doubt see that more clearly today. Since 2006, when they won majorities in both the House and the Senate, their approval ratings have plummeted, in large part because moderates and liberals have noticed their inability to get much of anything done. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to blame “the obstructionism of the Republicans,” but realistically, one can hardly blame Senate Republicans for obstructing legislation they oppose. The fault lies not with the obstructionists, but with the procedural rule that facilitates obstruction. In short, with the filibuster—a dubious tradition that encourages senators to act as spoilers rather than legislators, and that has locked the political system into semipermanent paralysis by ensuring that important decisions are endlessly deferred. It should be done away with.
Back in 2005, Senate Democrats seeking to block the GOP majority portrayed the filibuster as a pillar of America’s democratic tradition. In fact, it’s no such thing. The original rules of the Senate allowed a simple majority of legislators to make a motion to end debate. In 1806, at the recommendation of Aaron Burr, those rules were amended to allow for unlimited argument—not to create a countermajoritarian check on legislation, but because the motion had been so rarely invoked that it “could not be necessary.” This decision paved the way for the modern filibuster. But no one actually attempted to use it until 1837, when a minority block of Whig senators prolonged debate to prevent Andrew Jackson’s allies from expunging a resolution of censure against him. The unlimited-debate rule eventually became so cumbersome that senators made attempts at reform in 1850, 1873, 1883, and 1890, all unsuccessful. Finally, in 1917, the Senate adopted a rule allowing a two-thirds supermajority to cut off debate.
Under this rule, in the years that followed, segregationists mounted a series of filibusters meant to block civil-rights legislation. In 1922, the mere threat of the procedure was enough to torpedo a bill to prevent lynchings. In 1946, a filibuster undermined a bill by Senator Dennis Chavez of New Mexico intended to block workplace discrimination. Strom Thurmond set the record for longest individual filibuster—at more than 24 hours—in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to block the relatively mild Civil Rights Act of 1957. And the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 secured a filibuster-proof majority only after 57 days of debate and substantial watering down.
By 1975, the Senate was finally prepared for reform. But rather than eliminate the filibuster entirely and return to majority rule, the members merely diluted it, reducing the number of votes required to end debate from 67 to 60.
Since then, filibustering has only grown more frequent. In the 1960s, no Congress had more than seven filibusters. In the early 1990s, the 102nd Congress witnessed 47, more than had occurred throughout the entire 19th century. And that was not an especially filibuster-prone Congress—each subsequent one has seen progressively more. The 110th Congress, which just ended, featured 137.
The minority party of the day will inevitably defend such obstruction as a crucial bulwark of liberty. During the judicial-confirmations fight, the liberal Interfaith Alliance warned that a filibuster-free Senate “would leave the majority with the power to reign with absolute tyranny.” But the risk of one-party rule shouldn’t be exaggerated. Majority voting works fine for democracies around the world, and the need for legislation to pass through two separately elected houses of Congress and be signed into law by the president still gives our government more chances to veto objectionable bills than most other countries allow for.
In recent decades, periods of one-party rule have been rare and brief. The only circumstances under which party-line legislation is even a theoretical possibility for any length of time would be when the country feels that the party in power is doing a decent job. And that, one would think, is exactly the sort of situation in which an extended period of one-party rule might be deemed unobjectionable. The filibuster is hardly the only impediment to legislative change, but it’s the one least justified by our Constitution and least supported by our values. And eliminating it would drastically reduce excuses for inaction—the one thing Congress has produced in abundance in recent years.
The URL for this page is http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200812u/filibuster
Stimulus Package
House OKs $819B stimulus bill with GOP opposition
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writer Thu Jan 29, 2:35 am ET
WASHINGTON – In a swift victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House approved a historically huge $819 billion stimulus bill Wednesday night with spending increases and tax cuts at the heart of the young administration's plan to revive a badly ailing economy. The vote was 244-188, with Republicans unanimous in opposition despite Obama's frequent pleas for bipartisan support.
"This recovery plan will save or create more than three million new jobs over the next few years," the president said in a written statement released moments after the House voted. Still later, he welcomed congressional leaders of both parties to the White House for drinks as he continued to lobby for the legislation.
Earlier, Obama declared, "We don't have a moment to spare" as congressional allies hastened to do his bidding in the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
The vote sent the bill to the Senate, where debate could begin as early as Monday on a companion measure already taking shape. Democratic leaders have pledged to have legislation ready for Obama's signature by mid-February.
A mere eight days after Inauguration Day, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the events heralded a new era. "The ship of state is difficult to turn," said the California Democrat. "But that is what we must do. That is what President Obama called us to do in his inaugural address."
With unemployment at its highest level in a quarter-century, the banking industry wobbling despite the infusion of staggering sums of bailout money and states struggling with budget crises, Democrats said the legislation was desperately needed.
"Another week that we delay is another 100,000 or more people unemployed. I don't think we want that on our consciences," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the leading architects of the legislation.
Republicans said the bill was short on tax cuts and contained too much spending, much of it wasteful, and would fall far short of administration's predictions of job creation.
The party's leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, said the measure "won't create many jobs, but it will create plenty of programs and projects through slow-moving government spending." A GOP alternative, comprised almost entirely of tax cuts, was defeated, 266-170.
On the final vote, the legislation drew the support of all but 11 Democrats, while all Republicans opposed it.
The White House-backed legislation includes an estimated $544 billion in federal spending and $275 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses. The totals remained in flux nearly until the final vote, due to official re-estimates and a last-minute addition of $3 billion for mass transit.
Included is money for traditional job-creating programs such as highway construction and mass transit projects. But the measure tickets far more for unemployment benefits, health care and food stamp increases designed to aid victims of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Tens of billions of additional dollars would go to the states, which confront the prospect of deep budget cuts of their own. That money marks an attempt to ease the recession's impact on schools and law enforcement. With funding for housing weatherization and other provisions, the bill also makes a down payment on Obama's campaign promise of creating jobs that can reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.
The centerpiece tax cut calls for a $500 break for single workers and $1,000 for couples, including those who don't earn enough to owe federal income taxes.
The House vote marked merely the first of several major milestones a for the legislation, which Democratic leaders have pledged to deliver to the White House for Obama's signature by mid-February.
Already a more bipartisan — and costlier — measure is taking shape in the Senate, and Obama personally pledged to House and Senate Republicans in closed-door meetings on Tuesday that he is ready to accept modifications as the legislation advances.
Rahm Emanuel, a former Illinois congressman who is Obama's chief of staff, invited nearly a dozen House Republicans to the White House late Tuesday for what one participant said was a soft sales job.
This lawmaker quoted Emanuel as telling the group that polling shows roughly 80 percent support for the legislation, and that Republicans oppose it at their political peril. The lawmaker spoke on condition of anonymity, saying there was no agreement to speak publicly about the session.
In fact, though, many Republicans in the House are virtually immune from Democratic challenges because of the makeup of their districts, and have more to fear from GOP primary challenges in 2010. As a result, they have relatively little political incentive to break with conservative orthodoxy and support hundreds of billions in new federal spending.
Also, some Republican lawmakers have said in recent days they know they will have a second chance to support a bill when the final House-Senate compromise emerges in a few weeks.
Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, sought to strip out all the spending from the legislation before final passage, arguing that the entire cost of the bill would merely add to soaring federal deficits. "Where are we going to get the money," he asked, but his attempt failed overwhelmingly, 302-134.
Obey had a ready retort. "They don't look like Herbert Hoover, I guess, but there are an awful lot of people in this chamber who think like Herbert Hoover," he said, referring to the president whose term is forever linked in history with the Great Depression.
___
Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor, Liz Sidoti and Ben Feller contributed to this story.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_co/obama_economy_208/print
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writer Thu Jan 29, 2:35 am ET
WASHINGTON – In a swift victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House approved a historically huge $819 billion stimulus bill Wednesday night with spending increases and tax cuts at the heart of the young administration's plan to revive a badly ailing economy. The vote was 244-188, with Republicans unanimous in opposition despite Obama's frequent pleas for bipartisan support.
"This recovery plan will save or create more than three million new jobs over the next few years," the president said in a written statement released moments after the House voted. Still later, he welcomed congressional leaders of both parties to the White House for drinks as he continued to lobby for the legislation.
Earlier, Obama declared, "We don't have a moment to spare" as congressional allies hastened to do his bidding in the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
The vote sent the bill to the Senate, where debate could begin as early as Monday on a companion measure already taking shape. Democratic leaders have pledged to have legislation ready for Obama's signature by mid-February.
A mere eight days after Inauguration Day, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the events heralded a new era. "The ship of state is difficult to turn," said the California Democrat. "But that is what we must do. That is what President Obama called us to do in his inaugural address."
With unemployment at its highest level in a quarter-century, the banking industry wobbling despite the infusion of staggering sums of bailout money and states struggling with budget crises, Democrats said the legislation was desperately needed.
"Another week that we delay is another 100,000 or more people unemployed. I don't think we want that on our consciences," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the leading architects of the legislation.
Republicans said the bill was short on tax cuts and contained too much spending, much of it wasteful, and would fall far short of administration's predictions of job creation.
The party's leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, said the measure "won't create many jobs, but it will create plenty of programs and projects through slow-moving government spending." A GOP alternative, comprised almost entirely of tax cuts, was defeated, 266-170.
On the final vote, the legislation drew the support of all but 11 Democrats, while all Republicans opposed it.
The White House-backed legislation includes an estimated $544 billion in federal spending and $275 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses. The totals remained in flux nearly until the final vote, due to official re-estimates and a last-minute addition of $3 billion for mass transit.
Included is money for traditional job-creating programs such as highway construction and mass transit projects. But the measure tickets far more for unemployment benefits, health care and food stamp increases designed to aid victims of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Tens of billions of additional dollars would go to the states, which confront the prospect of deep budget cuts of their own. That money marks an attempt to ease the recession's impact on schools and law enforcement. With funding for housing weatherization and other provisions, the bill also makes a down payment on Obama's campaign promise of creating jobs that can reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.
The centerpiece tax cut calls for a $500 break for single workers and $1,000 for couples, including those who don't earn enough to owe federal income taxes.
The House vote marked merely the first of several major milestones a for the legislation, which Democratic leaders have pledged to deliver to the White House for Obama's signature by mid-February.
Already a more bipartisan — and costlier — measure is taking shape in the Senate, and Obama personally pledged to House and Senate Republicans in closed-door meetings on Tuesday that he is ready to accept modifications as the legislation advances.
Rahm Emanuel, a former Illinois congressman who is Obama's chief of staff, invited nearly a dozen House Republicans to the White House late Tuesday for what one participant said was a soft sales job.
This lawmaker quoted Emanuel as telling the group that polling shows roughly 80 percent support for the legislation, and that Republicans oppose it at their political peril. The lawmaker spoke on condition of anonymity, saying there was no agreement to speak publicly about the session.
In fact, though, many Republicans in the House are virtually immune from Democratic challenges because of the makeup of their districts, and have more to fear from GOP primary challenges in 2010. As a result, they have relatively little political incentive to break with conservative orthodoxy and support hundreds of billions in new federal spending.
Also, some Republican lawmakers have said in recent days they know they will have a second chance to support a bill when the final House-Senate compromise emerges in a few weeks.
Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, sought to strip out all the spending from the legislation before final passage, arguing that the entire cost of the bill would merely add to soaring federal deficits. "Where are we going to get the money," he asked, but his attempt failed overwhelmingly, 302-134.
Obey had a ready retort. "They don't look like Herbert Hoover, I guess, but there are an awful lot of people in this chamber who think like Herbert Hoover," he said, referring to the president whose term is forever linked in history with the Great Depression.
___
Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor, Liz Sidoti and Ben Feller contributed to this story.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_co/obama_economy_208/print
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Saturday, January 3, 2009
"Prickly City" takes on the Constitution and the Takings Clause
This is from the paper. All credit given, it is from December 31st, KC Star. Prickly City is one of the few comic strips that leans right. The storyline included here is originally from 2005, and deals with a fight for Walmart to build. Walmart has brought on controversy in Virginia, proposing to build within a mile of the entrance to the historic battle site of the Wilderness (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJpplE9BdF5uEHq4nJg1n5D9o45AD95F6OGG0).
Is Walmart what the founding fathers had in mind when they put in the Takings Clause? Where can we see its use today, in our area? Should Kansas City invoke it to build a light rail system? Where should the trail run? Who should be forced to give up their properties?
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
George Will Says Goodbye to 2008
2008: Rod, Eliot, Yuck
During the presidential contest between an African-American from Chicago and a plumber from Toledo, eros reared its beguiling head.
George F. Will
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Jan 5, 2009
Never a stickler for rhetorical ruffles and flourishes, the president simply said: "This sucker could go down." He was referring to the economy, which took the president's party down with it. In the second quarter, General Motors lost $181,000 a minute. Would you buy a used car company? Didn't think so. But in 2009, you probably will, if you are a taxpayer.
By 2010, you will be able to buy the plug-in electric Chevrolet Volt. Although it is designed to reduce America's dependency on foreign oil, a GM spokesman said: "There is a fear that if we position this as a 'pro-American' car, it will upset some of the environmentally conscious crowd." Heaven forfend.
If 2008 were not divisible by four, this would have been The Year of Gen. David Petraeus. During the presidential contest between an African-American from Chicago and a plumber from Toledo, eros reared its beguiling head, so: Coming soon to a Cineplex near you, "Republicans in Love," a romantic comedy about conservatives who advocate extravagant presidential powers and who this autumn favored putting the governor of a national park (the federal government owns 63 percent of Alaska) in close proximity to those powers.
Cuba being politically primitive, Fidel Castro yielded power to his brother. Caroline Kennedy, because she is a president's daughter, sought the gift of the Senate seat from New York that Hillary Clinton got because she married a president, but Andrew Cuomo, son of a New York governor, might get it, because this is a democracy.
Thanks to Rod Blagojevich, Eliot Spitzer, a.k.a. Client Nine, was only the second-most embarrassing governor. Actually, third-most, considering the lurid mismanagement of California. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, like Mrs. Jellyby in Dickens's "Bleak House," practiced "telescopic philanthropy." She neglected her chaotic family so she could devote herself to improving conditions in distant Borrioboola-Gha. With California chin-deep in red ink, Schwarzenegger summoned an international conference to tweak the planet's thermostat.
A San Francisco teacher's first graders went on a field trip to witness her lesbian wedding. In nearby Hayward, a teacher asked her kindergartners to sign cards pledging "not to use anti-LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] language or slurs." For some reason, Californians voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. "This is not a matter for ridicule, this is serious," said Australia's health minister, whose department urged teachers not to mark grades with red pens because that color "can be seen as aggressive."
Peanut allergy had its 15 minutes as a cause of public health hysteria, long enough for the vigilant schools of Union County, N.C., to ban PB&J sandwiches. In New Haven, Conn., an eighth grader was suspended, removed as class vice president and banned from a school honors dinner because he bought a banned substance from a classmate. The substance was Skittles, the fruit-flavored candy. A food fascist explained that candy sales violate the school system's wellness policy. In Prince William County, Va., police were called when Randy Castro, 7, a first grader, became the subject of an incident report titled "Sexual Touching Against Student, Offensive." While still 6 he had smacked a classmate's bottom. Residents of New York City are becoming obese almost three times faster than other Americans, which is probably partly explained by nanny-mayor Michael Bloomberg's jihad against smoking. Compulsory calisthenics—"Central Park at 6:30 a.m. Be there or be fined!"—cannot be far off.
Even with a bum knee Tiger Woods was the best golfer. No one notified Michael Phelps that it was considered evolution when our Homo sapiens predecessors crawled out of the water.
Death, as it must to all, came to Jack Lucas, 80, who lied his way into the Marines at age 14, and on Iwo Jima, six days after his 17th birthday, won the Medal of Honor, becoming the youngest winner since the Civil War. Lazare Monticello, 110, was the last French infantryman from the War to End All Wars, which ended 90 years and hundreds of wars ago. Mildred Loving, 68, was a black woman who also was part Cherokee and Rappahannock Indian. Like another Virginian of color, Pocahontas, she married a white man. In 1967 she was the plaintiff in the wonderfully named Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, which struck down miscegenation laws. A lower court had upheld Virginia's Racial Integrity Act on the ground that if God had wanted the races to mix He would not have put them on different continents. That court did not explain why He allowed the slave trade to interfere with His plan.
"Shoot pool, Fast Eddie," said an irritated Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason) in "The Hustler" (1961). "I'm shootin' pool, Fats. When I miss, you can shoot," replied Fast Eddie Felsen (Paul Newman, then 36, in the movie that made him a star). Newman, 83, who rarely missed, will be. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, one of the slayers of the Soviet Union, was 89, seven years older than an American soulmate, the principal maker of the American conservative movement, William F. Buckley, whose harpsichord now makes Heavenly music among the harps.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/176299
© 2009
During the presidential contest between an African-American from Chicago and a plumber from Toledo, eros reared its beguiling head.
George F. Will
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Jan 5, 2009
Never a stickler for rhetorical ruffles and flourishes, the president simply said: "This sucker could go down." He was referring to the economy, which took the president's party down with it. In the second quarter, General Motors lost $181,000 a minute. Would you buy a used car company? Didn't think so. But in 2009, you probably will, if you are a taxpayer.
By 2010, you will be able to buy the plug-in electric Chevrolet Volt. Although it is designed to reduce America's dependency on foreign oil, a GM spokesman said: "There is a fear that if we position this as a 'pro-American' car, it will upset some of the environmentally conscious crowd." Heaven forfend.
If 2008 were not divisible by four, this would have been The Year of Gen. David Petraeus. During the presidential contest between an African-American from Chicago and a plumber from Toledo, eros reared its beguiling head, so: Coming soon to a Cineplex near you, "Republicans in Love," a romantic comedy about conservatives who advocate extravagant presidential powers and who this autumn favored putting the governor of a national park (the federal government owns 63 percent of Alaska) in close proximity to those powers.
Cuba being politically primitive, Fidel Castro yielded power to his brother. Caroline Kennedy, because she is a president's daughter, sought the gift of the Senate seat from New York that Hillary Clinton got because she married a president, but Andrew Cuomo, son of a New York governor, might get it, because this is a democracy.
Thanks to Rod Blagojevich, Eliot Spitzer, a.k.a. Client Nine, was only the second-most embarrassing governor. Actually, third-most, considering the lurid mismanagement of California. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, like Mrs. Jellyby in Dickens's "Bleak House," practiced "telescopic philanthropy." She neglected her chaotic family so she could devote herself to improving conditions in distant Borrioboola-Gha. With California chin-deep in red ink, Schwarzenegger summoned an international conference to tweak the planet's thermostat.
A San Francisco teacher's first graders went on a field trip to witness her lesbian wedding. In nearby Hayward, a teacher asked her kindergartners to sign cards pledging "not to use anti-LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] language or slurs." For some reason, Californians voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. "This is not a matter for ridicule, this is serious," said Australia's health minister, whose department urged teachers not to mark grades with red pens because that color "can be seen as aggressive."
Peanut allergy had its 15 minutes as a cause of public health hysteria, long enough for the vigilant schools of Union County, N.C., to ban PB&J sandwiches. In New Haven, Conn., an eighth grader was suspended, removed as class vice president and banned from a school honors dinner because he bought a banned substance from a classmate. The substance was Skittles, the fruit-flavored candy. A food fascist explained that candy sales violate the school system's wellness policy. In Prince William County, Va., police were called when Randy Castro, 7, a first grader, became the subject of an incident report titled "Sexual Touching Against Student, Offensive." While still 6 he had smacked a classmate's bottom. Residents of New York City are becoming obese almost three times faster than other Americans, which is probably partly explained by nanny-mayor Michael Bloomberg's jihad against smoking. Compulsory calisthenics—"Central Park at 6:30 a.m. Be there or be fined!"—cannot be far off.
Even with a bum knee Tiger Woods was the best golfer. No one notified Michael Phelps that it was considered evolution when our Homo sapiens predecessors crawled out of the water.
Death, as it must to all, came to Jack Lucas, 80, who lied his way into the Marines at age 14, and on Iwo Jima, six days after his 17th birthday, won the Medal of Honor, becoming the youngest winner since the Civil War. Lazare Monticello, 110, was the last French infantryman from the War to End All Wars, which ended 90 years and hundreds of wars ago. Mildred Loving, 68, was a black woman who also was part Cherokee and Rappahannock Indian. Like another Virginian of color, Pocahontas, she married a white man. In 1967 she was the plaintiff in the wonderfully named Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, which struck down miscegenation laws. A lower court had upheld Virginia's Racial Integrity Act on the ground that if God had wanted the races to mix He would not have put them on different continents. That court did not explain why He allowed the slave trade to interfere with His plan.
"Shoot pool, Fast Eddie," said an irritated Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason) in "The Hustler" (1961). "I'm shootin' pool, Fats. When I miss, you can shoot," replied Fast Eddie Felsen (Paul Newman, then 36, in the movie that made him a star). Newman, 83, who rarely missed, will be. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, one of the slayers of the Soviet Union, was 89, seven years older than an American soulmate, the principal maker of the American conservative movement, William F. Buckley, whose harpsichord now makes Heavenly music among the harps.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/176299
© 2009
Effects of Socialization
An interesting premise. How true is this? How much do we do for ourselves, and how much do we fall into a situation that is to our benefit? What role does this research play in our school systems?
From the New York Times
December 16, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Lost in the Crowd
By DAVID BROOKS
All day long, you are affected by large forces. Genes influence your intelligence and willingness to take risks. Social dynamics unconsciously shape your choices. Instantaneous perceptions set off neural reactions in your head without you even being aware of them.
Over the past few years, scientists have made a series of exciting discoveries about how these deep patterns influence daily life. Nobody has done more to bring these discoveries to public attention than Malcolm Gladwell.
Gladwell’s important new book, “Outliers,” seems at first glance to be a description of exceptionally talented individuals. But in fact, it’s another book about deep patterns. Exceptionally successful people are not lone pioneers who created their own success, he argues. They are the lucky beneficiaries of social arrangements.
As Gladwell told Jason Zengerle of New York magazine: “The book’s saying, ‘Great people aren’t so great. Their own greatness is not the salient fact about them. It’s the kind of fortunate mix of opportunities they’ve been given.’ ”
Gladwell’s noncontroversial claim is that some people have more opportunities than other people. Bill Gates was lucky to go to a great private school with its own computer at the dawn of the information revolution. Gladwell’s more interesting claim is that social forces largely explain why some people work harder when presented with those opportunities.
Chinese people work hard because they grew up in a culture built around rice farming. Tending a rice paddy required working up to 3,000 hours a year, and it left a cultural legacy that prizes industriousness. Many upper-middle-class American kids are raised in an atmosphere of “concerted cultivation,” which inculcates a fanatical devotion to meritocratic striving.
In Gladwell’s account, individual traits play a smaller role in explaining success while social circumstances play a larger one. As he told Zengerle, “I am explicitly turning my back on, I think, these kind of empty models that say, you know, you can be whatever you want to be. Well, actually, you can’t be whatever you want to be. The world decides what you can and can’t be.”
As usual, Gladwell intelligently captures a larger tendency of thought — the growing appreciation of the power of cultural patterns, social contagions, memes. His book is being received by reviewers as a call to action for the Obama age. It could lead policy makers to finally reject policies built on the assumption that people are coldly rational utility-maximizing individuals. It could cause them to focus more on policies that foster relationships, social bonds and cultures of achievement.
Yet, I can’t help but feel that Gladwell and others who share his emphasis are getting swept away by the coolness of the new discoveries. They’ve lost sight of the point at which the influence of social forces ends and the influence of the self-initiating individual begins.
Most successful people begin with two beliefs: the future can be better than the present, and I have the power to make it so. They were often showered by good fortune, but relied at crucial moments upon achievements of individual will.
Most successful people also have a phenomenal ability to consciously focus their attention. We know from experiments with subjects as diverse as obsessive-compulsive disorder sufferers and Buddhist monks that people who can self-consciously focus attention have the power to rewire their brains.
Control of attention is the ultimate individual power. People who can do that are not prisoners of the stimuli around them. They can choose from the patterns in the world and lengthen their time horizons. This individual power leads to others. It leads to self-control, the ability to formulate strategies in order to resist impulses. If forced to choose, we would all rather our children be poor with self-control than rich without it.
It leads to resilience, the ability to persevere with an idea even when all the influences in the world say it can’t be done. A common story among entrepreneurs is that people told them they were too stupid to do something, and they set out to prove the jerks wrong.
It leads to creativity. Individuals who can focus attention have the ability to hold a subject or problem in their mind long enough to see it anew.
Gladwell’s social determinism is a useful corrective to the Homo economicus view of human nature. It’s also pleasantly egalitarian. The less successful are not less worthy, they’re just less lucky. But it slights the centrality of individual character and individual creativity. And it doesn’t fully explain the genuine greatness of humanity’s outliers. As the classical philosophers understood, examples of individual greatness inspire achievement more reliably than any other form of education. If Gladwell can reduce William Shakespeare to a mere product of social forces, I’ll buy 25 more copies of “Outliers” and give them away in Times Square.
From the New York Times
December 16, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Lost in the Crowd
By DAVID BROOKS
All day long, you are affected by large forces. Genes influence your intelligence and willingness to take risks. Social dynamics unconsciously shape your choices. Instantaneous perceptions set off neural reactions in your head without you even being aware of them.
Over the past few years, scientists have made a series of exciting discoveries about how these deep patterns influence daily life. Nobody has done more to bring these discoveries to public attention than Malcolm Gladwell.
Gladwell’s important new book, “Outliers,” seems at first glance to be a description of exceptionally talented individuals. But in fact, it’s another book about deep patterns. Exceptionally successful people are not lone pioneers who created their own success, he argues. They are the lucky beneficiaries of social arrangements.
As Gladwell told Jason Zengerle of New York magazine: “The book’s saying, ‘Great people aren’t so great. Their own greatness is not the salient fact about them. It’s the kind of fortunate mix of opportunities they’ve been given.’ ”
Gladwell’s noncontroversial claim is that some people have more opportunities than other people. Bill Gates was lucky to go to a great private school with its own computer at the dawn of the information revolution. Gladwell’s more interesting claim is that social forces largely explain why some people work harder when presented with those opportunities.
Chinese people work hard because they grew up in a culture built around rice farming. Tending a rice paddy required working up to 3,000 hours a year, and it left a cultural legacy that prizes industriousness. Many upper-middle-class American kids are raised in an atmosphere of “concerted cultivation,” which inculcates a fanatical devotion to meritocratic striving.
In Gladwell’s account, individual traits play a smaller role in explaining success while social circumstances play a larger one. As he told Zengerle, “I am explicitly turning my back on, I think, these kind of empty models that say, you know, you can be whatever you want to be. Well, actually, you can’t be whatever you want to be. The world decides what you can and can’t be.”
As usual, Gladwell intelligently captures a larger tendency of thought — the growing appreciation of the power of cultural patterns, social contagions, memes. His book is being received by reviewers as a call to action for the Obama age. It could lead policy makers to finally reject policies built on the assumption that people are coldly rational utility-maximizing individuals. It could cause them to focus more on policies that foster relationships, social bonds and cultures of achievement.
Yet, I can’t help but feel that Gladwell and others who share his emphasis are getting swept away by the coolness of the new discoveries. They’ve lost sight of the point at which the influence of social forces ends and the influence of the self-initiating individual begins.
Most successful people begin with two beliefs: the future can be better than the present, and I have the power to make it so. They were often showered by good fortune, but relied at crucial moments upon achievements of individual will.
Most successful people also have a phenomenal ability to consciously focus their attention. We know from experiments with subjects as diverse as obsessive-compulsive disorder sufferers and Buddhist monks that people who can self-consciously focus attention have the power to rewire their brains.
Control of attention is the ultimate individual power. People who can do that are not prisoners of the stimuli around them. They can choose from the patterns in the world and lengthen their time horizons. This individual power leads to others. It leads to self-control, the ability to formulate strategies in order to resist impulses. If forced to choose, we would all rather our children be poor with self-control than rich without it.
It leads to resilience, the ability to persevere with an idea even when all the influences in the world say it can’t be done. A common story among entrepreneurs is that people told them they were too stupid to do something, and they set out to prove the jerks wrong.
It leads to creativity. Individuals who can focus attention have the ability to hold a subject or problem in their mind long enough to see it anew.
Gladwell’s social determinism is a useful corrective to the Homo economicus view of human nature. It’s also pleasantly egalitarian. The less successful are not less worthy, they’re just less lucky. But it slights the centrality of individual character and individual creativity. And it doesn’t fully explain the genuine greatness of humanity’s outliers. As the classical philosophers understood, examples of individual greatness inspire achievement more reliably than any other form of education. If Gladwell can reduce William Shakespeare to a mere product of social forces, I’ll buy 25 more copies of “Outliers” and give them away in Times Square.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Cheney Records Conflict
Sep 9, 2008 1:00 pm US/Pacific
Watchdog Group Sues Cheney Over Records
WASHINGTON (AP) ―
A watchdog group sued Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday, seeking a court order that he comply with the Presidential Records Act.The group that sued is concerned that Cheney will argue that his records are not subject to the post-Watergate law aimed at safeguarding White House records for eventual release to the public.The lawsuit by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington stems from Cheney's position that his office is not part of the executive branch of government.A spokesman for Cheney, Jamie Hennigan, said the office of the vice president follows the Presidential Records Act and will continue to follow the requirements of the law. He said that includes turning over vice presidential records to the National Archives at the end of the term."Given the unlawful policies and directives of the defendants, there is an imminent threat that even before the end of this administration, Vice President Cheney and the OVP will destroy, transfer, or otherwise dispose of many of the vice president's records under the theory they are personal records and therefore not covered" by the law, the lawsuit stated.The lawsuit details Bush administration actions that raise questions over whether the White House will turn over records created by Cheney and his staff to the National Archives in January.President Bush issued an order in 2001 saying that the Presidential Records Act applies to the "executive records" of the vice president.In 2003, Cheney asserted that the office of the vice president is not an entity within the executive branch.On four occasions, the vice president's office has refused to comply with an Ethics in Government Act requirement that all executive branch agencies file reports on any privately paid travel. Separately, the vice president's office has refused to submit its staff list to Congress.Two months ago, Cheney chief of staff David Addington told Congress the vice president belongs to neither the executive nor legislative branch of government, but rather is attached by the Constitution to Congress. The vice president presides over the Senate.CREW also is suing the National Archives, which said recently that legislative records of the vice president subject to the Presidential Records Act are the vice president's personal records.Others joining CREW in the lawsuit are two noted historians and three organizations of historians and archivists.The lawsuit is before U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of President Clinton.Separately, 32 historians wrote congressional leaders saying that the Presidential Records Act should be strengthened to include some kind of enforcement mechanism for violations. The historians cited the White House e-mail controversy involving millions of apparently missing emails.The White House is missing as many as 225 days of e-mail dating back to 2003 and there is little if any likelihood a recovery effort will be completed by the time the Bush administration leaves office, according to an internal White House draft document obtained by The Associated Press.
(© 2008 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
Watchdog Group Sues Cheney Over Records
WASHINGTON (AP) ―
A watchdog group sued Vice President Dick Cheney on Monday, seeking a court order that he comply with the Presidential Records Act.The group that sued is concerned that Cheney will argue that his records are not subject to the post-Watergate law aimed at safeguarding White House records for eventual release to the public.The lawsuit by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington stems from Cheney's position that his office is not part of the executive branch of government.A spokesman for Cheney, Jamie Hennigan, said the office of the vice president follows the Presidential Records Act and will continue to follow the requirements of the law. He said that includes turning over vice presidential records to the National Archives at the end of the term."Given the unlawful policies and directives of the defendants, there is an imminent threat that even before the end of this administration, Vice President Cheney and the OVP will destroy, transfer, or otherwise dispose of many of the vice president's records under the theory they are personal records and therefore not covered" by the law, the lawsuit stated.The lawsuit details Bush administration actions that raise questions over whether the White House will turn over records created by Cheney and his staff to the National Archives in January.President Bush issued an order in 2001 saying that the Presidential Records Act applies to the "executive records" of the vice president.In 2003, Cheney asserted that the office of the vice president is not an entity within the executive branch.On four occasions, the vice president's office has refused to comply with an Ethics in Government Act requirement that all executive branch agencies file reports on any privately paid travel. Separately, the vice president's office has refused to submit its staff list to Congress.Two months ago, Cheney chief of staff David Addington told Congress the vice president belongs to neither the executive nor legislative branch of government, but rather is attached by the Constitution to Congress. The vice president presides over the Senate.CREW also is suing the National Archives, which said recently that legislative records of the vice president subject to the Presidential Records Act are the vice president's personal records.Others joining CREW in the lawsuit are two noted historians and three organizations of historians and archivists.The lawsuit is before U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of President Clinton.Separately, 32 historians wrote congressional leaders saying that the Presidential Records Act should be strengthened to include some kind of enforcement mechanism for violations. The historians cited the White House e-mail controversy involving millions of apparently missing emails.The White House is missing as many as 225 days of e-mail dating back to 2003 and there is little if any likelihood a recovery effort will be completed by the time the Bush administration leaves office, according to an internal White House draft document obtained by The Associated Press.
(© 2008 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
Historians Sue Dick Cheney
Historian David McCullough has signed on to this suit, as listed in the February issue of American History Magazine. What are the implications for hisotry if the Vice President refuses to turn over his documents?
Lawsuit to Ask That Cheney's Papers Be Made Public
By Christopher LeeWashington Post Staff WriterMonday, September 8, 2008; A04
Months before the Bush administration ends, historians and open-government advocates are concerned that Vice President Cheney, who has long bristled at requirements to disclose his records, will destroy or withhold key documents that illustrate his role in forming U.S. policy for the past 7 1/2 years.
In a preemptive move, several of them have agreed to join the advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in asking a federal judge to declare that Cheney's records are covered by the Presidential Records Act of 1978 and cannot be destroyed, taken or withheld without proper review.
The group expects to file the lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It will name Cheney, the executive offices of the president and vice president, and the National Archives and chief archivist Allen Weinstein as defendants.
The goal, proponents say, is to protect a treasure trove of information about national security, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, domestic wiretapping, energy policy, and other major issues that could be hidden from the public if Cheney adheres to his view that he is not part of the executive branch. Extending the argument, scholars say, Cheney could assert that he is not required to make his papers public after leaving office. Access to the documents is crucial because he is widely considered to be the most influential vice president in U.S. history, they note.
"I'm concerned that they may not be preserved. Whether they've been zapped already, we don't know," said Stanley I. Kutler, an emeritus professor and constitutional scholar at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
Former vice president Walter F. Mondale, whose papers are being declassified and shipped to the Minnesota Historical Society, said the fate of Cheney's records bears watching.
"I think you'd have to be very worried about it," said Mondale, who is not a party to the lawsuit. "Under Bush and Cheney, they've used every opportunity to assert executive privilege."
Cheney has not disclosed his plans for his papers, nor has he argued publicly that any are exempt from the 1978 law. Congress passed the law after the Watergate scandal to ensure that the country's highest elected officials preserve their papers for public review.
"The Office of the Vice President currently follows the Presidential Records Act and will continue to follow the requirements of the law, which includes turning over vice presidential records to the National Archives at the end of the term," Cheney spokesman Jamie Hennigan said in an e-mail.
Kutler and others, including the American Historical Association and the Society of American Archivists, are not reassured. Their lawsuit contends that President Bush sought to improperly narrow the scope of the records law in a 2001 executive order that declares, in part, that the statute "applies to the executive records of the Vice President."
Scholars say "executive records" is a term that is not found in the original act, and that seemingly opens the door to withholding some documents on the grounds that they are "non-executive" records -- legislative records, for instance. It raised red flags because Cheney has frequently argued that his office is not part of the executive branch but rather is "attached" to the legislative branch by virtue of the vice president's role as president of the Senate.
"I think this has been in the works since then, but nobody really focused on it," said Anne Weismann, chief counsel for the ethics group.
The group wants the Archives to abandon its interpretation that legislative records of vice presidents are personal property and not covered by the presidential records law.
Gary M. Stern, general counsel for the Archives, said he has shared the group's concerns with the White House.
"We have no reason to think that anything will happen differently with this vice president than has happened with any other," Stern said, "which is, the records that they create in their White House office and with their White House staff will come to us as vice presidential records under PRA."
Former vice president Al Gore's papers, for instance, are maintained at an Archives facility in Washington, he said.
Martin J. Sherwin, a history professor at George Mason University and a plaintiff in the case, said it will be impossible to measure Cheney's influence without access to the records.
"It horrifies me as a citizen to think our government can operate in total secrecy during the administration and then, after the administration, remain in secrecy," he said.
For years, Cheney has resisted revealing any aspect of the inner workings of his office; he has shielded information such as the names of industry executives who advised his energy task force, his travel costs and details, and Secret Service logs of visitors to his office and residence. Since 2003, his office has refused to comply with an executive order requiring entities in the executive branch to file annual reports on their possession of classified data, at one point blocking an inspection by officials from the Archives.
The Presidential Records Act, inspired by Nixon's attempt to withhold from Congress and perhaps destroy some of his records and tapes after Watergate, first applied to the Reagan administration. For the first time, it provided for the preservation of vice presidential records.
The law established a process for providing public access to presidential and vice presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act, beginning five years after an administration ends. Presidents and vice presidents can restrict access to certain records, notably those involving national security, for up to 12 years.
Archives officials say they have met with White House staff members to discuss the records transfer. The agency has leased a 60,000-square-foot building near Dallas to archive records temporarily until Bush's presidential library is completed at Southern Methodist University.
"There have been no red flags that have gone up for us about records-management procedures and getting ready to turn records over to us," said Susan Cooper, an Archives spokeswoman.
Joel K. Goldstein, a constitutional scholar and expert on the vice presidency at the St. Louis University School of Law, said Cheney faces a tough sell if he argues that many of his documents are not "executive records."
"When a vice president is sitting there in the West Wing and participating at the highest levels in the work of the executive branch, and when the main reason somebody like Vice President Cheney wants to be vice president is to help drive the car, it's a little bit anomalous to say you're not part of the executive branch," said Goldstein, who is not part of the lawsuit.
Staff writer Lyndsey Layton contributed to this report.
Lawsuit to Ask That Cheney's Papers Be Made Public
By Christopher LeeWashington Post Staff WriterMonday, September 8, 2008; A04
Months before the Bush administration ends, historians and open-government advocates are concerned that Vice President Cheney, who has long bristled at requirements to disclose his records, will destroy or withhold key documents that illustrate his role in forming U.S. policy for the past 7 1/2 years.
In a preemptive move, several of them have agreed to join the advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in asking a federal judge to declare that Cheney's records are covered by the Presidential Records Act of 1978 and cannot be destroyed, taken or withheld without proper review.
The group expects to file the lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It will name Cheney, the executive offices of the president and vice president, and the National Archives and chief archivist Allen Weinstein as defendants.
The goal, proponents say, is to protect a treasure trove of information about national security, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, domestic wiretapping, energy policy, and other major issues that could be hidden from the public if Cheney adheres to his view that he is not part of the executive branch. Extending the argument, scholars say, Cheney could assert that he is not required to make his papers public after leaving office. Access to the documents is crucial because he is widely considered to be the most influential vice president in U.S. history, they note.
"I'm concerned that they may not be preserved. Whether they've been zapped already, we don't know," said Stanley I. Kutler, an emeritus professor and constitutional scholar at the University of Wisconsin Law School.
Former vice president Walter F. Mondale, whose papers are being declassified and shipped to the Minnesota Historical Society, said the fate of Cheney's records bears watching.
"I think you'd have to be very worried about it," said Mondale, who is not a party to the lawsuit. "Under Bush and Cheney, they've used every opportunity to assert executive privilege."
Cheney has not disclosed his plans for his papers, nor has he argued publicly that any are exempt from the 1978 law. Congress passed the law after the Watergate scandal to ensure that the country's highest elected officials preserve their papers for public review.
"The Office of the Vice President currently follows the Presidential Records Act and will continue to follow the requirements of the law, which includes turning over vice presidential records to the National Archives at the end of the term," Cheney spokesman Jamie Hennigan said in an e-mail.
Kutler and others, including the American Historical Association and the Society of American Archivists, are not reassured. Their lawsuit contends that President Bush sought to improperly narrow the scope of the records law in a 2001 executive order that declares, in part, that the statute "applies to the executive records of the Vice President."
Scholars say "executive records" is a term that is not found in the original act, and that seemingly opens the door to withholding some documents on the grounds that they are "non-executive" records -- legislative records, for instance. It raised red flags because Cheney has frequently argued that his office is not part of the executive branch but rather is "attached" to the legislative branch by virtue of the vice president's role as president of the Senate.
"I think this has been in the works since then, but nobody really focused on it," said Anne Weismann, chief counsel for the ethics group.
The group wants the Archives to abandon its interpretation that legislative records of vice presidents are personal property and not covered by the presidential records law.
Gary M. Stern, general counsel for the Archives, said he has shared the group's concerns with the White House.
"We have no reason to think that anything will happen differently with this vice president than has happened with any other," Stern said, "which is, the records that they create in their White House office and with their White House staff will come to us as vice presidential records under PRA."
Former vice president Al Gore's papers, for instance, are maintained at an Archives facility in Washington, he said.
Martin J. Sherwin, a history professor at George Mason University and a plaintiff in the case, said it will be impossible to measure Cheney's influence without access to the records.
"It horrifies me as a citizen to think our government can operate in total secrecy during the administration and then, after the administration, remain in secrecy," he said.
For years, Cheney has resisted revealing any aspect of the inner workings of his office; he has shielded information such as the names of industry executives who advised his energy task force, his travel costs and details, and Secret Service logs of visitors to his office and residence. Since 2003, his office has refused to comply with an executive order requiring entities in the executive branch to file annual reports on their possession of classified data, at one point blocking an inspection by officials from the Archives.
The Presidential Records Act, inspired by Nixon's attempt to withhold from Congress and perhaps destroy some of his records and tapes after Watergate, first applied to the Reagan administration. For the first time, it provided for the preservation of vice presidential records.
The law established a process for providing public access to presidential and vice presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act, beginning five years after an administration ends. Presidents and vice presidents can restrict access to certain records, notably those involving national security, for up to 12 years.
Archives officials say they have met with White House staff members to discuss the records transfer. The agency has leased a 60,000-square-foot building near Dallas to archive records temporarily until Bush's presidential library is completed at Southern Methodist University.
"There have been no red flags that have gone up for us about records-management procedures and getting ready to turn records over to us," said Susan Cooper, an Archives spokeswoman.
Joel K. Goldstein, a constitutional scholar and expert on the vice presidency at the St. Louis University School of Law, said Cheney faces a tough sell if he argues that many of his documents are not "executive records."
"When a vice president is sitting there in the West Wing and participating at the highest levels in the work of the executive branch, and when the main reason somebody like Vice President Cheney wants to be vice president is to help drive the car, it's a little bit anomalous to say you're not part of the executive branch," said Goldstein, who is not part of the lawsuit.
Staff writer Lyndsey Layton contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)