Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
And the AAAS is none too happy about it:
The president of the nation's largest general science organization yesterday sharply criticized recent cases of Bush administration political appointees gaining permanent federal jobs with responsibility for making or administering scientific policies, saying the result would be "to leave wreckage behind.""It's ludicrous to have people who do not have a scientific background, who are not trained and skilled in the ways of science, make decisions that involve resources, that involve facilities in the scientific infrastructure," said James McCarthy, a Harvard University oceanographer who is president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "You'd just like to think people have more respect for the institution of government than to leave wreckage behind with these appointments."
More details:
His comments came as several new examples surfaced of political appointees gaining coveted, high-level civil service positions as the administration winds down. The White House has said repeatedly that all gained their new posts in an open, competitive process, but congressional Democrats and others questioned why political appointees had won out over qualified federal career employees.In one recent example, Todd Harding -- a 30-year-old political appointee at the Energy Department -- applied for and won a post this month at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. There, he told colleagues in a Nov. 12 e-mail, he will work on "space-based science using satellites for geostationary and meteorological data." Harding earned a bachelor's degree in government from Kentucky's Centre College, where he also chaired the Kentucky Federation of College Republicans.
Also this month, Erik Akers, the congressional relations chief for the Drug Enforcement Administration, gained a permanent post at the agency after being denied a lower-level career appointment late last year.
And in mid-July, Jeffrey T. Salmon, who has a doctorate in world politics and was a speechwriter for Vice President Cheney when he served as defense secretary, had been selected as deputy director for resource management in the Energy Department's Office of Science. In that position, he oversees decisions on its grants and budget.
Anyone surprised? Me neither.
Politics
Comments
"You'd just like to think people have more respect for the institution of government than to leave wreckage behind with these appointments."
Has he paid any attention to the GOP for the last 30 years? This is the party that argued that government is the problem, not the solution, that wants to drown government in the bathtub, and wants the government out of our lives. They despise the institution of government, except insofar as it can be used to enrich themselves and their pals.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | November 26, 2008 10:00 AM
"geostationary" data? Do you suppose he meant geospatial data, but he doesn't quite know the terminology?
Posted by: John the Skeptic | November 26, 2008 10:37 AM
Obama should identify appointments like these, assign them to cleaning toilets at the same rate of pay, and then hire a new qualified person under a slightly different job title to actually do the job.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 26, 2008 11:12 AM
"geostationary" data? Do you suppose he meant geospatial data, but he doesn't quite know the terminology?
Doubt it. I've met James McCarthy several times. I'm pretty satisfied he knows the relevant terminology quite well. Geostationary data are different from geospatial data.
Posted by: Josh | November 26, 2008 11:37 AM
I agree with Gingerbaker: give all these appointments "horizontal promotions" after making a special agency for them, and then fire them for not being able to adequately fulfill the requirements of their jobs.
Posted by: Umlud | November 26, 2008 11:43 AM
"Ask not what your country can do for you--ask how you can bugger your country."
Posted by: mark | November 26, 2008 12:13 PM
This sort of thing, where Schedule C employees switch to career status is known as "burrowing in" and it occurs every time there is a change in administration in Washington, particularly if the change involved a change in party. There are several ways to handle it, the most popular of which is for the incoming administration to abolish the job involved and create another one with a slightly different job description. If the former Schedule C employee hasn't been with the agency very long, he probably has zero bumping rights and can be expeditiously shown the door. The list of Schedule C jobs, by the way, is known as the "Plum Book."
Posted by: SLC | November 26, 2008 12:20 PM
Assign them to the "B" ark.
(See "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" for this reference.)
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | November 26, 2008 1:51 PM
Re: geostationary data.
Have you ever tried working with data that's not geostationary? Every time you look around for the damn stuff it's gone somewhere else.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 26, 2008 2:14 PM
James Hanley: Hahaha! Great joke.
Posted by: Julian | November 26, 2008 2:26 PM
Posted by: WScott | November 26, 2008 2:44 PM
Lame Duck is working at continuing his, and the Religious Right's, agenda of know-nothing after he's gone. These people are burrowing in across the board, in agency after agency.
I can only hope there is some way to work around their numbskull selves.
Posted by: bonefish | November 26, 2008 5:36 PM
Permanent executive branch appointments? Huh? I'm used to the idea of judicial appointments, but where the heck does it say in the Constitution that appointments to the executive are permanent?
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 26, 2008 7:02 PM
So he filled the White House with unqualified people (person) for 8 years, why is this a surprise?
Posted by: BaldApe | November 26, 2008 10:58 PM
And also Mike Leavitt? -- http://missivesfromthefrontallobe.blogspot.com/ ("An open letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt")
(I'm not from the USA, so I can't say either way myself, but this blogger seems to think the same.)
Posted by: Heraclides | November 26, 2008 11:42 PM
Just to see if I can stir things are any of the libertarians around here going to respond to the claim that this is the result of wanting 'the government out of our lives'?
Posted by: Matty | November 27, 2008 10:28 AM