Rational Governing Loses to Self Interests

BY DAVID BRODER
davidbroder@washpost.com

A new publication came across my desk this week containing an essay that offers as good an insight into President Obama's approach to government as anything I have read. It's particularly useful in understanding the current struggle over healthcare reform.
The publication is called National Affairs, and its advisory board is made up of noted conservative academics from James W. Ceaser to James Q. Wilson. The article that caught my eye, titled Obama and the Policy Approach, was written by William Schambra, the director of the Hudson Institute's Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal.
Schambra, like many others, was struck by the ``sheer ambition'' of Obama's legislative agenda and by his penchant for centralizing authority under a strong White House staff replete with many issue ``czars.''
Schambra sees this as evidence that ``Obama is emphatically a `policy approach' president. For him, governing means not just addressing discrete challenges as they arise, but formulating comprehensive policies aimed at giving large social systems -- and indeed society itself -- more rational and coherent forms and functions. In this view, the long-term, systemic problems of healthcare, education and the environment cannot be solved in small pieces. They must be taken on in whole.''
He traces the roots of this approach back to the progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when rapid social and economic change created a politics dominated by interest-group struggles. The progressives believed that the cure lay in applying the new wisdom of the social sciences to the art of government, an approach where facts would heal the clash of ideologies and narrow constituencies.
Obama -- a highly intelligent product of elite universities -- is far from the first Democratic president to subscribe to this approach. Jimmy Carter, and especially Bill Clinton, attempted to govern this way. But Obama has made it even more explicit, regularly proclaiming his determination to rely on rational analysis, rather than narrow decisions, on everything from missile defense to Afghanistan -- and all the big issues at home.
``In one policy area after another,'' Schambra writes, ``from transportation to science, urban policy to auto policy, Obama's formulation is virtually identical: Selfishness or ideological rigidity has led us to look at the problem in isolated pieces . . .; we must put aside parochialism to take the long systemic view; and when we finally formulate a uniform national policy supported by empirical and objective data rather than shallow, insular opinion, we will arrive at solutions that are not only more effective but less costly as well. This is the mantra of the policy presidency.''
Historically, that approach has not worked.
The progressives failed to gain more than brief ascendancy and the Carter and Clinton presidencies were marked by striking policy failures. The reason, Schambra says, is that this highly rational, comprehensive approach fits uncomfortably with the Constitution, which apportions power among so many different players, most of whom are far more concerned with the particulars of policy than its overall coherence.
The energy-climate change bill that went into the House was a reasonably coherent set of trade-offs that would reduce carbon emissions and help the atmosphere. When it came out, it was a grab bag of subsidies and payoffs to various industries and groups. It is similarly stymied in the Senate.
Schambra's essay anticipated exactly what is happening on healthcare. Obama, budget director Peter Orszag and health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle grasp the intricacies of the healthcare system as well as any three humans, and they could write a law to make it far more efficient.
But it is in the hands of legislators and lobbyists who care much less about the rationality of the system than they do about the way the bill will affect their particular part of it. Everyone has a parochial agenda.
Democracy and representative government are a lot messier than the progressives and their heirs, including Obama, want to admit. No wonder they are so often frustrated.

(C)2009 The Washington Post

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/other-views/story/1250682.html

What does this author posit? Your thoughts on this article? Possible solutions, if any are needed?

Boxed in

Sep 23rd 2009
From The Economist print edition

Who watches most television?

DESPITE an increase in entertainment choices, watching television remains as popular as ever, according to data from the OECD's Communications Outlook report. American households watch the box for over eight hours a day on average, twice as long as anyone else. Viewing has fallen in some countries. Turks reportedly watched an hour's less television per day in 2007 than they did only two years earlier, when the country was America's nearest rival as couch-potato king.

Shutterstock

Yes, its purposefully vague. You guys can do a lot with it. Lets see what you produce... The article is light and easy... I want you guys to focus on your take homes... Nonetheless, your writing should be no less eloquent. What do you get from this article? Can one draw a conclusion from the information presented. Does it make you wonder? If so, what?

States vs Federal

Explain this cartoon and why you feel the artist made it. What is he/she trying to communicate to the viewer. Question its accuracy. Critique its symbolism.

Some Parents Oppose Obama School Speech

New York Times
September 4, 2009

By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr. and SAM DILLON

HOUSTON — President Obama’s plan to deliver a speech to public school students on Tuesday has set off a revolt among conservative parents, who have accused the president of trying to indoctrinate their children with socialist ideas and are asking school officials to excuse the children from listening.

The uproar over the speech, in which Mr. Obama intends to urge students to work hard and stay in school, has been particularly acute in Texas, where several major school districts, under pressure from parents, have laid plans to let children opt out of lending the president an ear.

Some parents said they were concerned because the speech had not been screened for political content. Nor, they said, had it been reviewed by the State Board of Education and local school boards, which, under state law, must approve the curriculum.

“The thing that concerned me most about it was it seemed like a direct channel from the president of the United States into the classroom, to my child,” said Brett Curtis, an engineer from Pearland, Tex., who said he would keep his three children home.

“I don’t want our schools turned over to some socialist movement.”

The White House has said the speech will emphasize the importance of education and hard work in school, both to the individual and to the nation. The message is not partisan, nor compulsory, officials said.

“This isn’t a policy speech,” said Sandra Abrevaya, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education. “It’s designed to encourage kids to stay in school. The choice on whether to show the speech to students is entirely in the hands of each school. This is absolutely voluntary.”

Mr. Obama’s speech was announced weeks ago, but the furor among conservatives reached a fever pitch Wednesday morning as right-wing Web sites and talk show hosts began inveighing against it.

Mark Steyn, a Canadian author and political commentator, speaking on the Rush Limbaugh show on Wednesday, made extensive reference to Saddam Hussein’s cult of personality in Iraqi schools, and said an attempt to create a “cult of personality at grade-school level” should have no place in the United States.

The Republican Party chairman in Florida, Jim Greer, said he “was appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology.”

And Chris Stigall, a Kansas City talk show host, said, “I wouldn’t let my next-door neighbor talk to my kid alone; I’m sure as hell not letting Barack Obama talk to him alone.”

Previous presidents have visited public schools to speak directly to students, although few of those events have been broadcast live. Mr. Obama’s address at noon, Eastern time, at a high school in Virginia, will be streamed live on the White House Web site.

The first President George Bush, a Republican, made a similar nationally broadcast speech from a Washington high school in 1991, urging students to study hard, avoid drugs and to ignore peers “who think it’s not cool to be smart.” Democrats in Congress accused him of using taxpayer money — $27,000 to produce the broadcast — for “paid political advertising.”

This week, school officials were hearing from parents about the issue not only in Texas, but in other parts of the country as well — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, South Carolina and Utah.

Herb Garrett, executive director of the Georgia School Superintendents Association, said many of his members felt that the controversy had put them in an awkward situation, vulnerable to attacks from conservative talk-show hosts if they open up instructional time for Mr. Obama’s speech, and open to accusations that they have disrespected the president if they do not.

“It’s one of those no-wins,” Mr. Garrett said.

In Texas, calls and e-mail messages flooded into the offices of many local school officials. “I didn’t get a positive call all day,” said Susan Dacus, a spokeswoman for the Wylie Independent School District outside Dallas.

School officials in Wylie decided to record the speech, review it and then let individual teachers show it, offering students the opportunity to avoid listening if they wished.

In Houston, teachers have been asked to tell parents if they intend to show the speech and the schools will provide an alternative class for those whose parents object, a spokesman for the district, Lee Vela, said.

Some Houston parents, however, said telling children they should not hear out the president of the United States, even if their parents dislike his policies, sends the wrong message — that one should not listen to someone with whom you disagree.

“It’s difficult for me to understand how listening to the president, the commander in chief, the chief citizen of this country, is damaging to the youth of today,” said Phyllis Griffin Epps, an analyst for the city who has two children in public school.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: September 5, 2009
An article on Friday about objections from some parents to a planned speech by President Obama to public school students misspelled the surname of a parent from Pearland, Tex., who said, “I don’t want our school turned over to some socialist movement.” He is Brett Curtis, not Curtiss.

Correction: September 8, 2009
An article on Friday about criticism of President Obama’s plan to address schoolchildren on Tuesday referred incorrectly to remarks by Mark Steyn, a Canadian author and political commentator, on the Rush Limbaugh show. (The Media Equation column in Business Day on Monday also included the incorrect reference.) Mr. Steyn made extensive reference to Saddam Hussein’s cult of personality in Iraqi schools, and said an attempt to create a “cult of personality at grade-school level” should have no place in the United States, but said he was not accusing the president of a “cult of personality on the kind of Kim Jong-il, Saddam Hussein scale." He did not explicitly compare the president to Saddam or the North Korean leader or say that Mr. Obama’s efforts were “analagous” to theirs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/us/04school.html

Read the article. Take into consideration the position of the President's republican opponents, the media, the individual families, and the President himself. Talk about their individual actions during this "controversy." Those of you who saw the speech, share your opinions and interpretation with us. As students, you are a direct part of this "controversy," lets see what you guys have to say and perhaps even how your parents feel.

Legal case against God dismissed... God not reached for comments

The plaintiff argued an omniscient God would know of the lawsuit

A US judge has thrown out a case against God, ruling that because the defendant has no address, legal papers cannot be served.

The suit was launched by Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers, who said he might appeal against the ruling.

He sought a permanent injunction to prevent the "death, destruction and terrorization" caused by God.

Judge Marlon Polk said in his ruling that a plaintiff must have access to the defendant for a case to proceed.

"Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed with prejudice," Judge Polk wrote in his ruling.

Mr Chambers cannot refile the suit but may appeal.

'God knows everything'

Mr Chambers sued God last year. He said God had threatened him and the people of Nebraska and had inflicted "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants".

He said he would carefully consider Judge Polk's ruling before deciding whether to appeal.

The court, Mr Chambers said, had acknowledged the existence of God and "a consequence of that acknowledgement is a recognition of God's omniscience".

"Since God knows everything," he reasoned, "God has notice of this lawsuit."

Mr Chambers, a state senator for 38 years, said he filed the suit to make the point that "anyone can sue anyone else, even God".

Snippet from the BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7673591.stm

I have to say, I have never read anything like this before in my life. I'd like to solicit your thoughts on the article. After writing your opinion, visit some of your classmates blogs, regardless of period, read some of their statements and comment constructively on their thoughts. The blog-url-list-o-doom sits in the drop as a comprehensive reference of your classmates blogs. Enjoy.

Hi : o)

Welcome, all, to my blog. We live in a world were people travel and communicate faster then previously possible. Walt Disney wasn't kidding when he said, "... its a small world after all." In this world of "hope and fears" its important ideas and educated opinions be voiced. What you, my students, will do is create your own blog here on blogger.com. Title it, make it pretty, make it yours. Have it reflect who you are. Every week, I will assign an article for you to read, post a statement or question, show you a picture or something of that nature. Your task will be to blog about whatever it may be. Voice your educated opinions in an entertaining manner, express your feelings, question its ethics, write a "what would you do," substantiate your opinions with reputable web links, post pictures of your own. Also, aside from writing your own blog, leaving constructive comments on another students blog will also be required. Welcome to the bloggershpere!

Truly,

H