Historian Kleinman juxtaposes the intellectual and professional lives of two the key figures in US history after World War II to explore a fatal division in American liberal thinking about domestic politics and international relations during and after the war. Wallace, who started in agriculture and served as vice president, did not rule out a cooperative relationship with the Soviet Union; Niebuhr, an internationally respected protestant theologian and political commentator, categorically rejected dealing with any communists at home or abroad. He argues that Wallace's defeat in the 1942 campaign for president perpetuated the climate of fear that only melted during the Vietnam War. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR
How the NSF became an important yet controversial patron for the social sciences, influencing debates over their scientific status and social relevance. In the early Cold War years, the U.S. government established the National Science Foundation (NSF), a civilian agency that soon became widely known for its dedication to supporting first-rate science. The agency's 1950 enabling legislation made no mention of the social sciences, although it included a vague reference to "other sciences." Nevertheless, as Mark Solovey shows in this book, the NSF also soon became a major--albeit controversial--source of public funding for them.
Does science work best in a democracy? Were 'Soviet' or 'Nazi' science fundamentally different from science in the USA? These questions have been passionately debated in the recent past. Particular developments in science took place under particular political regimes, but they may or may not have been directly determined by them. Science and Ideology brings together a number of comparative case studies to examine the relationship between science and the dominant ideology of a state. Cybernetics in the USA is compared to France and the Soviet Union. Postwar Allied science policy in occupied Germany is juxtaposed to that in Japan. The essays are narrowly focussed, yet cover a wide range of countries and ideologies. The collection provides a unique comparative history of scientific policies and practices in the 20th century.
Numerous popular and scholarly accounts have exposed the deep impact of patrons on the production of scientific knowledge and its applications. Shaky Foundations provides the first extensive examination of a new patronage system for the social sciences that emerged in the early Cold War years and took more definite shape during the 1950s and early 1960s, a period of enormous expansion in American social science. By focusing on the military, the Ford Foundation, and the National Science Foundation, Mark Solovey shows how this patronage system presented social scientists and other interested parties, including natural scientists and politicians, with new opportunities to work out the scientific identity, social implications, and public policy uses of academic social research. Solovey also examines significant criticisms of the new patronage system, which contributed to widespread efforts to rethink and reshape the politics-patronage-social science nexus starting in the mid-1960s. Based on extensive archival research, Shaky Foundations addresses fundamental questions about the intellectual foundations of the social sciences, their relationships with the natural sciences and the humanities, and the political and ideological import of academic social inquiry.
Based on the most current evidence and best practices, Perioperative Medicine: Managing for Outcome, 2nd Edition, is an easy-to-follow, authoritative guide to achieving optimal outcomes in perioperative care. Written and edited by recognized authorities in anesthesiology and surgical critical care, this fully updated edition helps you think critically about complex, long-term issues surrounding the care of the surgical patient, providing decision trees that define strategies to enhance the medical outcome of care. - Focuses on what anesthesiologists, surgeons, and intensivists need to know in order to improve outcomes through evidence- and outcome-based approaches. - Provides practical guidance on potential risks to all major organ systems, the etiology of particular organ dysfunctions, preoperative and intraoperative risk factors, and perioperative protection strategies to minimize potential complications. - Features a consistent chapter format - with even more color-coded algorithms, summary tables, and boxes – that enables you to quickly explore and determine the best management approaches. - Includes six all-new chapters: Perioperative Fluid Management; Delirium and POCD; Role of Palliative Care/ICU; Value-Based Care: The UK Model; CFO Perspective on Value; Hospital to Home (Perioperative Transitions of Care) - Discusses timely topics such as quality improvement, pay-for-performance, preexisting disease and comorbid conditions in anesthesiology, and the team-based model of care. - Features two new editors, surgeon Clifford Ko, MD, and Perioperative Summit leader, Michael (Monty) Mythen, MD.
Faced with crises that would challenge any president, Barack Obama authorized "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg to oversee the $20 billion fund for victims of the BP oil spill and to establish—and enforce—executive pay guidelines for companies that received $700 billion in federal bailout money. Feinberg's office comes with vastly expansive policy powers along with seemingly deep pockets; yet his position does not formally fit anywhere within our government's constitutional framework. The very word "czar" seems inappropriate in a constitutional republic, but it has come to describe any executive branch official who has significant authority over a policy area, works independently of agency or Department heads, and is not confirmed by the Senate-or subject to congressional oversight. Mitchel Sollenberger and Mark Rozell provide the first comprehensive overview of presidential czars, tracing the history of the position from its origins through its initial expansion under FDR and its dramatic growth during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The President's Czars shows how, under pressure to act on the policy front, modern presidents have increasingly turned to these appointed officials, even though by doing so they violate the Appointments Clause and can also run into conflict with the nondelegation doctrine and the principle that a president cannot unilaterally establish offices without legislative support. Further, Sollenberger and Rozell contend that czars not only are ill-conceived but also disrupt a governing system based on democratic accountability. A sobering overview solidly grounded in public law analysis, this study serves as a counter-argument to those who would embrace an excessively powerful presidency, one with relatively limited constraints. Among other things, it proposes the restoration of accountability—starting with significant changes to Title 3 of the U.S. Code, which authorizes the president to appoint White House employees "without regard to any other provision of law." Ultimately, the authors argue that czars have generally not done a good job of making the executive branch bureaucracy more effective and efficient. Whatever utility presidents may see in appointing czars, Sollenberger and Rozell make a strong case that the overall damage to our constitutional system is great-and that this runaway practice has to stop.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.