Holdren and Chu and the half empty glass
The decision by Barack Obama to appoint John Holdren as his chief scientific adviser deserves widespread welcome. The Harvard academic and former energy expert at the University of California, Berkeley, commands international respect among physicists, climate experts and other researchers.(...) Thus Obama, who takes up office on 20 January, has made it clear through Holdren's appointment that global warming is going to be dealt with robustly by his administration. Editorial - Observer
Now that President-elect Barack Obama's energy and environment team is complete, the message he's sending is loud and clear: The vacuum of U.S. leadership on climate change will be filled. His nominees share his goal of reducing carbon emissions and developing the next generation of energy production that will reduce this nation's dependence on fossil fuels. More important, they generally reflect the pragmatic approach to governing that Mr. Obama appears to be crafting with his Cabinet picks overall. Editorial - Washington Post
When I first read the comments above, I suddenly shared the same sort of elation-rush that so many Obama supporters experience.
Wow, I thought, that is really naming the best and the brightest, he must really care about energy and global warming, those heretofore starveling stepchildren of American politics. Change I can believe in.
Gee, I said to myself, it's as if he had named Nobel Prize winning economists, Joseph Stiglitz or Paul Krugman secretary of the treasury or even John Mearsheimer as secretary of state instead of Timothy Geithner and Hillary Clinton.
Of course that train of thought quickly drained my enthusiasm considerably. Because if, as the Washington Post says,
"the message he's sending is loud and clear: The vacuum of U.S. leadership on climate change will be filled. "then what is the message that he sending with such key appointments as those of Treasury and State? What is the message he is sending loud and clear about the vacuum of US leadership in economic policy and foreign affairs?
Certainly neither Geithner's nor Clinton's reputations in the fields they have been chosen to lead can compare with the reputations of John Holdren's and Nobel winning, Steven Chu's and certainly as important as energy and science are, at this moment of crisis, they are not more important than Treasury and State, which are both disaster areas.
I would say that naming these highly qualified men of wide and sterling reputations in their fields contrasts with the mediocrity of those chosen for posts that are objectively of greater immediate importance.
People of this high level do exist in both fields, not naming them to key posts shows that these vital cabinet positions are being used merely to pay political debts and that the Nobel Prize winners in other areas are being used as window dressing.
If their roles were going to be as important as the innocent editorial writers seem to believe, then in all logic their jobs would also be filled with political IOU holders.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
Advertisement
Not sure about Stiglitz, but I don't believe Krugman wants the job.
December 21, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was kind of shocked when I found out Krugman said no. Fuck.
December 21, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
apples and oranges and apricots.
If I run an engineering firm, I want brains and hands on experience. I want the latest technological know how.
But I need a sales department. And I need salespeople who know what we are doing but may not be on the same technical level as the engineers.
The Secretary of State is going to head our world sales department.
To say she is less than qualified is not tenable. Her name is known world wide because of what her husband has done and because of what she has accomplished on her own.
It will be a big thing for any world leader when Hillary comes knocking. She will get us in the door. With a top technical staff.
December 21, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The State Department is NOT a "sales department".
What I think any "world leader" would ask himself when Hillary "comes knocking" is whether she is speaking for Obama or for Hillary. The leader would have to ask him/herself what the relationship between Hillary and Obama really was and how much of what Hillary might suggest or promise was going to be finally delivered by the new "decider".Most leaders are going to find this confusing... and so does everybody else.
December 22, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
PSHAW
December 22, 2008 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with Dickday. The state department is many ways in our international sales department. It doesn't set international policy it sells it. It is the US voice to the international community.
As far as world leaders wondering if Hillary speaks for Hillary or Obama. I think it is safe to say Obama, unless she proves otherwise. And before anybody jumps down my throat I do not think she will prove otherwise.
December 22, 2008 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell is the point of the naked guy jumping like a frog at the top of this post?
December 22, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can guess correctly, putty you get the prize.
December 22, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink