CBS 2 School

Advocating the surge of Marine Corpsman in Afghanistan is not the only tough decision President Barack Obama will have to make in his first term.

Will he also call for a difficult surge of marine carpsman to save the eco-system of the Great Lakes?

Time to catch up on this fish story.

The menacing Asian carp was introduced into American waterways by accident.  The up to 100 pound ravaging fish was brought in to American rivers to eat algae in southern fish farms.  Some escaped their confinement and entered into the Mississippi River.  These Asian carp have made their way up river into the Illinois River and now are heading toward Lake Michigan.  Due to their eating habits and dangerous jumping tendency many worry that the Asian carp would be a costly detriment to the eco-system of the Great Lakes.  Time to call in the marine carpsman to hunt down this nuisance.

Illinois has started to take action.  Millions of dollars have been spent trying to trap and poison Asian carp.  Attempts have been made to limit travel through the intricate lock systems of the Illinois River system.  Trade and other business have been ill affected.  Many wonder what is the big deal?

Some fisheries in the area welcome the Asian carp.  Certain cultures enjoy the taste.  One such fishery outside of Chicago processed 2 million pounds of Asian carp last year.  They do not want to see the carp removed.

Now governments in Michigan and Wisconsin are joining Illinois is an attempt to control the ill affects of the Asian carp.

Bring in Obama.  The President met this week with representatives from the interested parties to reconcile some sort of “framework agreement.”

This allows us to review how federalism works in America.  Though we believe the division of power between national and state governments protects our liberties, the different institutions often are called upon to cooperate in order to resolve critical issues.  Political scientists call this cooperative federalism or marble cake federalism.

Why do we have federalism at all?  Federalism today is still a KEY STRUCTURAL feature of American Government.

1.    It deters the development of a completely unified political party system.
2.    Federalism limits what Congress and the President can do in terms of public policy.
3.    In the United States federalism may contribute to meeting a wide diversity of needs and conditions throughout the country.
4.    Federalism does contribute to a closeness to the population because each states’ government is closer to the population than is the federal (national) government.
5.    Federalism does allow for state policy experimentation.
6.    Federalism does allow more access points for minority office holders.

Another feature is that Federalism may allow us to resolve issues like the Asian carp.  Today federalism gives new meaning to the phrase carpe diem.

The Super Bowl is one of the biggest sporting events of the year.  Millions watch on TV and even more millions are wagered on the game.  Apart from being the showcase game for the NFL and one of television’s most watched shows, the Super Bowl is gambling’s biggest payday.

Over $1 billion was wagered on Super Bowl 44.

In addition to wagering on the final outcome one of the more popular gambling games during the Super Bowl is betting on the propositions.  A proposition is a side bet.  Sometimes they are called one-of-a-kind bets, props or exotics.  Proposition bets on Super Bowl Sunday cover every thing imaginable and even the unimaginable.

Here were a few of the more interesting proposition bets wagered during this year’s Super Bowl game:

Team to have the last penalty of the game
Will there be a score in the last 3 minutes 30 seconds of the game
Team to score last in the first half
Team with the most punts
Will there be a successful 2-point conversion in the game
Which team will have the most penalty yards
How many times will Kim Kardashian be shown on TV during the game
Which sideline reporter will be on TV first after the opening kick off
Will someone from the WHO at halftime break their guitar
Who will the Super Bowl game MVP thank first

In all there were over 350 proposition bets to choose from at this year’s Super Bowl game.

It would appear that American citizens are ready and willing to bet on just about anything.  Not unlike last year when 66.8 million Americans cast a vote for Barack Obama.

Two years earlier few of those voters had ever even heard of Barack Obama.

If polling numbers are to be believed many of those who wagered on Obama feel they have lost their bets.  The Tea Party Convention in Nashville over the weekend was filled with an even angrier crowd ready to wager on another proposition.

Sarah Palin.

President Obama has assured us he is not about to throw in his cards.  He is in this game to stay.  He is still propositioning health care reform, a new energy policy and even balance budgets.  Time will tell if he has any takers.  Some of these now sound as ridiculous as those we saw during the Super Bowl game.

The most intriguing proposition lies ahead in the form of the 2010 midterm elections.  The winners of that proposition will have a leg up on the next big game – the 2012 presidential election.

This Friday in Nashville, Tennessee the first National Tea Party Convention will be held.  It will be the recipient of much fanfare.  Though many may have never heard of the Tea Party movement the media will give it a lot of attention.  The so-called Tea Party movement has already taken on mythic proportions claiming upset political victories across the nation.

Then again tea parties are no stranger to mythology and lore.

In history the tea sage was an orphaned Chinese boy named Lu Yu.  A one-time transient circus clown the young Lu Yu received a big break when he gained access to a distinguished library and began a notable writing career.  His magnum opus was written in 800 A.D.  The book’s Chinese name is pronounced Cha Ching.  It can be translated as The Classic of Tea.  Tea, Lu Yu writes, “symbolized harmony and the mysterious unity of the Universe.”  Cha Ching is the definitive book on tea.  From it we can learn many important lessons that inform us about the Tea Party Convention meeting this weekend in Nashville.

Like Lu Yu, today’s Tea Party enthusiasts are political orphans.  Those who subscribe to Tea Party rhetoric and subsequent events are angry with today’s political parties.  Tea Party members are politically homeless.  They hope to find a home in the political party most willing to adopt a policy of small government and fiscal responsibility.

Central to any proper serving of tea, according to Lu Yu, is a sufficient supply of boiling water.  If one thing is true of today’s Tea Party members it is that they are angry.  Their tempers are boiling over.  They are mad at an unresponsive government.  They are angered by run away spending and huge deficits.  Tea Party members are zealous about protecting individual liberty.  Big government is their foe.  You can feel the heat when tea party members are around.

Cynically, however, one cannot help but wonder if the organizers of the National Tea Party have something more in common with Cha Ching.  Is this convention more about making money as in cha-ching?  T-shirt sales and other merchandising is bound to be a big part of this weekend.  Legitimate organizing activities and speeches by Sarah Palin and others will dominate the headlines but the bottom line will be as much about raising both profile and money for other organizations.  Lu Yu had it right.  Tea parties have always been about cha-ching.

Though many will want to compare today’s Tea Party movement to the Boston Tea Party back in 1773 colonial America, a closer analysis might find greater kinship to the writings of Lu Yu.  The aroma emanating from Nashville today was foretold 1200 years ago in the book Cha Ching.  

Chinese philosopher T'ien Yiheng wrote, “Tea is drunk to forget the din of the world.”  So it may be in Nashville this weekend.  And if that din subsides by the November mid-term elections?  Tea parties may be gone but the T-shirts will still hold their value – cha-ching!

Yesterday’s Illinois primary showed us that first isn’t always best.

Illinois held the nation’s first primary in 2010 but the dismal voter turnout left little to brag about.

For decades, Illinois hosted its primary elections in late March.  Then, in an effort to shape the 2008 presidential primary contest, the Illinois General Assembly scheduled the 2008 primary earlier than ever.  

As part of “Super Tuesday,” when 23 other states held their primaries in early February, 2008, Illinois did not prove to play a major role in the eventual nomination of Barack Obama.  Yet the excitement about Obama combined with competitive presidential nomination contests for both parties resulted in record turnout.  More than 3 million people cast votes statewide in that election.

Most expected that future primary dates would move back to March, but the Illinois General Assembly kept the 2010 positioned in early February.  The motive of keeping the primary scheduled for the dead of winter is debatable, but the impact is indisputable.

Voters disappeared in droves.

Compared to the total votes cast in 2008, yesterday’s turnout plummeted by about 1.4 million votes.  In fact, there were about 500,000 fewer ballots cast yesterday than were cast on March 19th, 2002.   

You might remember that primary election in 2002 when Illinois voters last had the chance to nominate gubernatorial candidates for an open seat.  Democrats nominated Rod Blagojevich and Republicans nominated Jim Ryan.

Since that election, we’ve seen one governor sent to prison on corruption-related charges and we’ve seen another governor arrested for allegations of corruption.

In the end, voters are always to blame for failing to participate in our republic’s most essential events.  But with both parties featuring incredibly close gubernatorial races and growing anger about  Illinois’s culture of corruption, we also have to figure that the early primary date proved to be a major factor in suppressing vote totals.

Both parties now have gubernatorial nomination contests decided by razor thin margins, and party leaders will have to consider the impact that dismal turnout had on these races.

Meanwhile, Illinois political leaders must reconsider scheduling any future February primaries when engaged citizenship appears to be the biggest loser on Election Day.   

With three simple words, the Constitution established that the United States would answer to the people.  Not to monarchs.  Not to generals.  And not to its individual states.

The people of Illinois will once again have the chance to act on the theories of democracy tomorrow in the February 2nd primary election.

Throughout the state, voters will be able to participate in an election that even the Framers of the Constitution never envisioned—primary elections.

The original Constitution doesn’t even mention the existence of political parties much less the most recent method parties use to nominate their candidates for November’s General Election.

Primary elections offer party supporters a chance to demonstrate their preferred candidate from within the party.  For more than a century, the major parties had allowed the elite of each party to select their party nominees.  In a movement toward internal democracy, both parties ended up adopting the primary election method of nominations in the second half of the 20th century.

This practice of empowering ordinary party supporters is actually quite rare around the globe.  But some countries, like Mexico, have moved toward party primaries as a way to help clean up electoral corruption and improve political legitimacy.

Meanwhile, other citizens in Illinois might have a different chance to participate in referendum -- a type of election despised by many of those who created our Constitution.

The Constitution was intended to thwart the abuse of power by governmental institutions as much as it was intended to prevent a “tyranny of the majority.” In Federalist 10, James Madison warned of the abuses that a majority faction could impose on an oppressed minority.  The large Republic created by the Constitution was intended to force factions to work together as a way to control abuses of popular power.

States and local governments have increasingly seen the their communities divide into two factions when turn to direct democracy to settle some of the most contentious political issues.  When voters have choice between a simple yes or no, difficult issues tend to be settled more quickly than with all of the compromises inherent in representative government.  But it also increases the opportunity for a narrow majority to impose major policy changes despised by a sizeable minority.

An interesting example of this is in New Trier Township where its high-school district is requesting citizen approval to raise $174 million for a major overhaul to its campus. Despite New Trier’s stellar academic reputation and the fact that it has not had to seek voter approval for a capital project since the 1950s, the community is deeply divided about the proposed renovations.

A true republic would allow elected board members to haggle about the best way to proceed on such a venture.  But most Illinois communities require that local governments ask for voter approval of policies that will result in a higher tax burden.  Illinois public schools, which disproportionately rely on revenue from property taxes, often face a skeptical public when asking voters to approve extra funds…especially in tough economic times.

No matter whether voting directly for a policy or to fill a governmental office, we encourage all citizens to answer the call of the Constitution and demonstrate the power of We the People.

We love our music.  Sunday night here on CBS we celebrate the year’s best music.  Live on Sunday night CBS will be telecasting the Recording Academy’s 52nd annual Grammy Awards.  In addition to the awards some of our most popular musicians will be performing.  The Grammys are one of the best shows of the year.

Many prominent public officials throughout history have made their love of music known.  One such lover of music was Abraham Lincoln.  He was outspoken in his love of the blackface minstrel song “Dixie” as well as the popular tune “Annie Laurie” by Stephen Foster.  The last musical event Lincoln attended was a performance of Mozart’s opera “Magic Flute.”  This popular opera told the story of Sarastro an enlightened absolutist leader marked by reason and wisdom.  Lincoln undoubtedly saw a part of himself in this musical portrayal.

If as Herbie Hancock said, “Music is an art form that transcends language” we wonder what today’s celebrated music might teach us about our current leadership in Washington.

Could Lady Gaga teach us about running the House of Representatives?  Her giant hit “Poker Face” seems to say something about how Speaker Nancy Pelosi has operated this past year.  The Speaker knows that passing bills in the House with simple majorities is much easier than in the Senate.  Without showing too much glee Pelosi has outperformed Obama administration expectations.  Pelosi unsuccessfully has tried not to gloat too much.

We suggest Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid listen to the Kings of Leon’s anthem “Use Somebody.”  Losing the important Kennedy seat to Republican Scott Brown will mean Senate Democrats will be desperate to find somebody – anybody – to help them pass legislation.  One vote puts the Democrats back on track to passing health care reform.

Taylor Swift might teach us about President Obama.  President Obama wanted to pass health care swiftly.  He knew the longer it took the less likely it would pass.  After losing support Obama has decided to go into campaign mode and remind voters “You Belong with Me.”  He has lost crossover appeal.  Can he get it back will be a big story in 2010.

Republicans appear to be listening to the Black Eyed Peas.  On their iPods they are humming along to the popular song “I Got a Feeling.”  Republican swagger is back.  They have Obama on the ropes.  Democrat agendas have stalled and the midterm elections look to favor the opposition party this go around.  “…It’s gonna be a good night.”

“Music is a moral law,” Plato wrote.  “It gives soul to the universe.”  Music is more than just entertainment.  It teaches, leads and inspires.  Good music is both cerebral and visceral.  Presidents and other elected officials have made their love of music well known.

Today we wonder what our leaders are listening to?  What do you think they are listening to?  What should they be listening to?

Are they listening at all might be a better question.  At the very least we hope they are listening to “we the people.”

Blog with us LIVE 2nite during the President's State of the Union address.

What impressions do you have of this political theater?  Is President Obama saying the right things?  What would you say if you were President?  Give Obama a grade.

CBS 2 School invites you to tune into President Barack Obama’s first State of the Union Address tonight and comment live with us as you watch the speech starting at 8 pm (Central.)

We expect plenty of you will be especially critical of the most common element of tonight’s event--the partisan nature of congressional applause.  But before you slam the show too hard, consider the alternatives:

The State of the Union Address as we know it is a relatively modern invention.  The Constitution actually requires the president to deliver the address to Congress, but the form of the address is up to each president to decide.  

George Washington delivered the address in the form of a speech as we know it, but this type of speech fell out of favor until Woodrow Wilson renewed the practice in 1913.

 Thomas Jefferson objected to rhetorical delivery of the speech thinking that is was too similar to the British monarch’s speech to open each session of Parliament.

The British still continue this type of address every fall with some significant differences from us.

In Britain, the speech is also delivered by the Head of State, but this is Queen Elizabeth not an elected official.  

The Queen enters the House of Lords not to shouts of approval but to silent respect and genuflecting knees.  Instead of standing to deliver the speech with rhetorical flourish (and the aid of teleprompters,) the Queen sits in her throne and reads.  

Like most presidents, the Queen has not written this speech.  Unlike the presidential address, the ideas of the speech aren’t even her own.

The Queen’s speech is actually written by the Prime Minister who is considered to be the Head of Government in Britain.  The Prime Minister simply uses this occasion, and the Queen’s voice, to outline the government’s main goals.

So before you sound off on the aesthetics of tonight’s show, consider the alternatives.  Imagine Obama sitting to simply read a speech that he had no part in shaping while a crowded legislature quietly nods their approval.  Or consider simply reading the speech that the president delivered in writing.  

We think you’ll be much more interested to tuning in at 8 pm to sound off about tonight’s presidential presentation.

As an enthusiastic exclamation “great Scott” has been used for over a hundred years.  Etymologists think it goes at least back to the American Civil War when Union soldiers observed Old Fuss and Feathers General Winfield Scott.  At over 300 pounds, seeing the war commander caused many to write in their journals, “great Scott.”

After last week’s electoral upset in the Massachusetts Senate race there is a new reason to exclaim “great Scott.”  Republican Scott Brown pulled off one of this generation’s greatest upsets and political surprises.  By stealing the Kennedy seat from the Democrats and threatening the vitality of Democratic majorities in the 111th Congress Scott Brown has sealed his name in political history even before casting one vote.

Brown personifies many important lessons we have learned from other great Scotts.

One of the greatest Scotts of all time was Robert Bruce (1274-1329).  This warrior helped to secure Scottish independence from England at the battle of Bannockburn in 1314.  His courage led an outnumbered band of guerilla soldiers to a victory over a much-heralded English army.  After Robert Bruce died his heart was used as a talisman as Scottish warriors advanced in subsequent crusades.  Truly Robert Bruce was a great Scott.  

Likewise, Scott Brown will be remembered for pursuing a political upset of epic proportions.  Brown unthinkably imagined a Massachusetts Senate seat independent from Democratic rule.  The courage behind his campaign can only be explained by the size of his heart.  Great Scott!

Another great Scott was the moral philosopher Adam Smith (1723-1790).  In addition to his contributions to moral sentiments this Scottish Enlightenment thinker is best known for his economic theories in The Wealth of Nations.  Smith gave birth to expositions on the value of market economies and limited governments.  Smith trusted “the invisible hand” of the market over the oppressive hand of a centralized king.  Truly Adam Smith was a great Scott.

Likewise, Scott Brown campaigned on the dangers of putting your trust in government solutions.  He promised to be an obstacle to Obama’s zealous health care plan.  A Brown victory would limit government.  For such an unlikely candidate to succeed an invisible hand would be needed.  It was provided by a host of nameless voters whose independence defied prediction.  Great Scott!

Lastly another Great Scott was the “Great Unknown” novelist and poet Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832).  This prolific Scottish writer often called “the Wizard of the North” found endearing audiences throughout Europe.  One of the most quoted lines in English literature, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive” is taken from a Walter Scott poem.  Truly Walter Scott was a great Scott.

Likewise, Scott Brown has written his own political history by defeating Democratic front-runner Martha Coakley last week in Massachusetts.  Lacking the heavy hitting Democratic pros Scott Brown had to campaign using his own poetry.  He exposed the tangled web of Democratic insiders who took their power for granted in Massachusetts. He also exploited the apparent deceiving actions of a government gone wild.  His victory stories will be told the world over for generations to come.  Great Scott!

Republican Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley in the special election to fill the empty seat of Ted Kennedy.

Great Scott!

Before the ink could dry on stories about Scott Brown’s historic Republican victory last Tuesday in Massachusetts the United States Supreme Court stole the headlines.  An upset victory for a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts is a big story.  Changing the campaign finance rules to benefit corporate donors is an even bigger story.  More and more green money will find its way into our political process.

Time to color in the details.

In a special session of the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy read his Majority Opinion in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).  It signaled a new day in campaign finance reform.

At issue was a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, 2002) that prohibited both corporations and unions to engage in “electioneering communication” 60 days prior to general elections.  Much of the details in the BCRA, commonly known as McCain-Feingold, had been held constitutional in the case McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).

What changed?  Samuel Alito replaced Sandra O’Connor.

The five most conservative justices all lined up together in forming the majority in the Citizens United case.  During the special session Associate Justice John Paul Stevens read from his 90-page dissent.  Both sides seemed to understand the significance of this case.

The conservative bloc essentially found any regulatory distinction based on a speaker’s identity a clear violation of the First Amendment’s protection.  This also would include the criminalization of corporate efforts to influence the political process prior to federal elections.  Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito stood up to defend freedom of speech.

The liberal bloc argued that certain civil liberties have always been limited.  Corporate interests, in particular, have been held out of direct political activity for over one hundred years.  The constitutionality of the Tillman Act (1907) has been consistently upheld.  It prevented monetary donations by corporations to national campaigns.  Many, including four on the current Court, saw no problem to limit corporate money in “electioneering communication” as well.

Republicans were pleased with the decision.  Democrats were not.  President Obama warned that the Court had given a “green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.”  Clearly there will be new and creative ways for big money to influence the political process.

Scott Brown became the 41st Republican Senator this week.  Brown’s victory, in part, appeared to be a repudiation of Obama’s first year in office.  The United States Supreme Court this week in an even bigger story vindicated the First Amendment.  In doing so they extended free speech protections to corporate donations to federal election campaigns.

Green trumps brown.  Money talks louder than one surprise victory in Massachusetts.  Ironically in this democracy the triumph of the people was trumped by the triumph of special interests.

The true colors of this week now look clearly black and white.