…and this is a 
Say no to RFK
Category: Politics • Skepticism
Posted on: November 7, 2008 2:47 PM, by PZ Myers
So far, rumors of the first two appointments by Obama leave me worried. Rahm? No, please — after campaigning on a slogan of "change", buying into one of the most deeply imbedded beltway insiders is not encouraging. Maybe there's some virtue in working with the Democratic establishment, so I can forgive one concession to the status quo, but let's see some innovative thinking, too.
More worrisome is the idea that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could get a prominent appointment. Orac has torn that one apart, and I agree: we do not need another irrational purveyor of woo and fluffy substanceless hysteria contributing to this country's administration.
One thing you can do is contact the transition team and voice your disapproval. Demand rigor in the people running our government!
Salon has an illuminating perspective on Rahm: he's Obama's designated asshole. Yeah, that works.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Badjuggler | November 7, 2008 3:08 PM
I was thinking maybe giving RFK Jr. a full-time job might keep him out of the vaccination fray and similar silliness. He has shown some passion on environmental things.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 7, 2008 3:12 PM
Is Jenny McCarthy up for a spot as well? At least I'd rather see her.
I think we've experienced enough anti-science in the last eight years or so.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: tsg | November 7, 2008 3:16 PM
Let him be head bee-guy.
Posted by: Former PZ Student | November 7, 2008 3:19 PM
"Rahm? No, please -- after campaigning on a slogan of "change", buying into one of the most deeply imbedded beltway insiders is not encouraging."
Exactly. I never liked the whole mantra of "Change". We must remember that change can be good or bad...positive or negative. I prefer the term Progress.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 7, 2008 3:19 PM
My inclination is to write a letter saying, "Yo, dudes, we voted for Obama over Palin. Don't make us find out we got both." Too snarky?
Oh, and "passion" is not enough to be a good environmentalist. Plenty of people over at Orac's place are upset that RFK "supports" wind power in general but petulantly refused to countenance a wind farm off Martha's Vineyard.
Posted by: heddle | November 7, 2008 3:25 PM
Badjuggler
Yes, he is very passionate about renewable energy, just NIMBY.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 7, 2008 3:27 PM
Rahm has this rather charming idea of conscripting everyone for "national service". Trouble is, there's this little thing in the constitution that prohibits it, called the thirteenth amendment. I really don't want anyone who believes that the people are the property of the state to command in any position of responsibility in the federal government.
-jcr
Posted by: Tulse | November 7, 2008 3:27 PM
Rahm comes from Congress, and thus knows the players on the Hill. He can play bad cop to potential renegade Dems, and ensure that Obama's legislative agenda moves forward. He may be partisan, but he is also likely to be effective, and I think that is a more important quality.
Posted by: Cyan | November 7, 2008 3:28 PM
The "change" referred to was the change from the 90% corrupt Republican establishment to the 50% corrupt Democratic establishment.
See the wrong lizard.
Posted by: Ian | November 7, 2008 3:29 PM
Yea I agree. It would be a real slap in the face of science to appoint RFK Jr. for anything, let alone a very science-intensive post like EPA. The head of the EPA doesn't have to be a scientist, but they should have the respect of scientists and more importantly have a healthy respect of the scientific process. RFK Jr. lacks both.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 7, 2008 3:29 PM
buying into one of the most deeply imbedded beltway insiders is not encouraging
That's basically what I said when he picked Biden.
Change? Yeah, right.
-jcr
Posted by: Sili | November 7, 2008 3:30 PM
I'll admit up front that the only thing I know of Rahm is the profile I read on BBC yesterday.
That said - politics is the art of the possible, and he does sound like someone who knows what's possible. Which is a damn good place to start if you wanna reach for the impossible.
Call me naïve (I am - in addition to being a coward), but I don't think Obama is the type to let himself get manipulated easily. Unlike some people ...
Kennedy, though ... if he is let near anything requiring real science, I'll have to reëvaluate my opinion of Obama's intellect.
I nearly creamed myself yesterday when I saw that Kerry is supposedly in play for secretary of state. Yay!
Posted by: bill r | November 7, 2008 3:31 PM
rahm: you expected someone else from a scion of the Daley machine? I wonder how much hope for change that gives to the Palestinians and Arabs. I loved his suggestion for a universal compulsory national service. Back in the day, we called the non-universal version "the draft".
Posted by: Russell Miller | November 7, 2008 3:34 PM
I don't expect Obama to make choices that I will necessarily agree with.
I do expect him to put some thought into it and hire some smart people. Even if they don't make the same decisions I would, I would like for those decisions to be at least deliberative and studied.
So far I am very pleased.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 7, 2008 3:34 PM
On the topic of wind farms, I generally have concerns for wildlife. Grassland species sometimes interpret them as forests and will avoid what's otherwise good land for them. And here in Texas, the companies building them are sometimes sneaky in their contracts, but that's a legal issue.
But back at the issue in hand: RFK's just twisted. He did a nasty job of quote mining and got caught at it. He manufactures conspiracies in violation of Occam's razor. Those are not traits you want in someone heading an organization.
Posted by: Phil | November 7, 2008 3:38 PM
I sent a missive to Obama. I pointed out that I voted for him and donated. I have a science background and RFK jr. despite his good works in other fields, is not a scientist and in fact to deny science in the face of facts , is the sort of mindset which leads to the Bush administration.
Posted by: bob | November 7, 2008 3:38 PM
A lot of haters here are employing a false dichotomy: politicians are either perfect or terrible. Grow the fuck up! Obama isn't perfect, and no one is claiming he is! Nevertheless, he does have a chance to be good (or at least be better than Bush was and McCain likely would have been). Write the campaign, and help him avoid his first major mistake: putting a crank pseudoscientist in a position of power. The back-and-forth comments in these political posts have been pathetic and worthless ... try doing something that might end up being productive for a change.
Posted by: AAB | November 7, 2008 3:41 PM
what is the matter with Rahm? I want more details.
Posted by: Hans | November 7, 2008 3:41 PM
The Supreme Court disagrees with you: 'In Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".'Posted by: Matt Heath | November 7, 2008 3:46 PM
If you search Google news for "RFK Jr" more than half of it is science bloggers screaming "HELL NO!". If it was ever a live consideration I suspect there's enough controversy to kill it off (especially now the contact is Pharyngulated).
Incidentally, doesn't a chief of staff more or less have to be an insider? It's Leo McGarry's job, right? Trading favours and banging heads to get things done?
Posted by: Freddie | November 7, 2008 3:52 PM
PZ, do you have any names you would like to see Obama considering?
I understand writing in to give him the criteria we think is important in making these decisions, but I think we could find flaws in many of the people already in government. I don't think "change" has to mean an entire clean slate of fresh leaders. We may have new Democrats in office, but several incumbents remain from both parties and they need to be courted. Also, I think if Obama runs his admin the way he ran his campaign then we'll see that his advisers will hopefully be just that, people who give different advice.
It's been so long since we've seen a President actually "lead" that we forget that a President can listen to opposing ideas and still make positive changes.
So I ask again, what names do you want to see on his advisory list?
Posted by: Lee Picton | November 7, 2008 3:53 PM
From what I have seen of Rahm, I find I must respectfully disagree; I think he will be the necessary hard nose who can shepherd Obama's wishes in the congress and free him up to concentrate on the big issues without having to pay attention to the details. Obama as the new guy on the block needs old hands around him. If he gets the right ones, it will be gratifying. Yeah, I know Bush had old hands, but they were war mongers who used Bush like a handpuppet and followed their own agenda. Bush is essentially a weak man who must bluster to cover up his own inadequacies- Obama is not. So far I am hopeful.
Posted by: LawnBoy | November 7, 2008 3:55 PM
I'm happy with the pick of Rahm. One of the big reasons that Carter and Clinton both got off to rocky starts is they brought in a confidant for a chief of staff. That's not what the position needs - it needs someone who knows how to work both the White House and the Congress.
Emanuel is one of the few Democrats out there who has experience in both the White House (the Clinton years) and in the Congress (6 years in the House, rising quickly to leadership).
It he a fresh face? No. Will he be effective? Very probably. That's a good thing in my book.
Posted by: noncarborundum | November 7, 2008 3:56 PM
"I have heard that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is under consideration to head the Environmental Protection Agency. I think Mr. Kennedy would be a poor choice.
"Mr. Kennedy is well known as an anti-vaccination activist. In this pursuit, he has engaged in shoddy reasoning, promulgated conspiracy theories, viciously attacked opponents, and thoroughly ignored the substantial body of scientific evidence that denies a connection between vaccination and autism. His misadventures in other scientific fields are similar.
"For the last eight years, the Republicans running this country have engaged in a well-documented war on science, in which science and reason were subordinated to political considerations. If the Obama Administration wishes to institute a corresponding Democratic war on science, Mr. Kennedy would be an excellent place to start. If, however, it wishes to repudiate the past eight years with an EPA that sets policy according to science and not vice versa, it should avoid Mr. Kennedy like the plague."
Posted by: Mike the Englishman | November 7, 2008 3:57 PM
@ #7:
Except that the Supreme Court has ruled in Butler vs. Perry that this is not true with respect to military service, and it seems overwhelmingly likely that the same would hold true for civilian service, given its limited timespan and duties associated with it.Frankly, the comparison of compulsory civilian service which endures for a tiny fraction of time with a condition of slavery that is lifelong, hereditary and inescapable is not only inaccurate, but leaves you looking dumber than a bag of spanners and juvenile with it.
And I don't want anyone as ignorant as you in any position of power whatsoever. Unfortunately for you, while your view of Rahm Emanuel is a strawman, mine of you is not.---
@ #8:
Exactly! Running on the principle of change and hope is grand, but it doesn't mean shit if you can't get anything done afterwards. All the principles in the world and $1 will get you a cup of coffee...
Posted by: spyderkl | November 7, 2008 3:59 PM
I think Emmanuel's a good choice for Obama. Yes, he's a Washington insider; but on the bright side, he knows very well how to Play the Game (which is something that can only help), and he's a good Chicago guy. Obama could do a whole lot worse, IMO.
For example, if he seriously considers RFK, Jr. for anything in his cabinet. At all. Especially in HHS, which frightens me to no end. After the last 8 years, the worst thing we could have in there is Mr. "Vaccines are Teh Evil".
Posted by: ggab | November 7, 2008 4:01 PM
The only reason that I never refer to myself as a democrat is that they never seem to have the balls to get anything done.
Rahm changes all that.
What do you want?
Rahm Emanuel is going to get shit done, or he's going to break some fucking knees and thumbs!!
Seriously, what the hell is going on here? It's like you're dying for a reason to be upset.
If the Kennedy thing turns out to be more than a rumour, I'll be a little nervous, but Rahm Emanuel is the perfect choice.
Christ, it's like dealing with the goth kids when I ran a nightclub. You're not happy unless you're unhappy.
Who the hell do you want as cheif of staff?
I want someone who will be able to bust kick some asses and get the job done. This guy is a freaking pit bull.
Posted by: GOPnot4me | November 7, 2008 4:02 PM
I read on one blog the suggestion that Obama wanted Rahmbo as Chief of Staff so that he would be in the W.H. where Obama could use his hard nose and keep an eye on him, rather than in the House obstructing the new agenda.
Clever.
Posted by: WBPNYC | November 7, 2008 4:02 PM
If Obama REALLY wants to change things; and I take him at his word that he PASSIONATELY does, then he needs someone to FACILITATE change. If he puts into place agents of change who already know all the ins/outs, who already know the arcane mechanics of government then he gets going right out of the gate. It is a great idea for Obama's learning curve to be mitigated by his support staff (I mean nothing derogatory with the use of support)not having such a steep curve.
Posted by: Wm Bishop | November 7, 2008 4:05 PM
Relax! I think you are getting too carried away here. He cannot just pick up novice outsiders that have no idea who is who and how Washington works. The Rahm pick is brilliant. He knows all the personalities on the hill and is the perfect person to get things done. He's a great compliment to Obama's personality. Don't go too idealistic here. Do you really want a repeat of Clinton's fiasco where he brought in hacks that had no clue how to hit the ground running? We don't have that luxury - economy and war. As a lifelong Republican and huge supporter of Obama, I cringe at the "typical" idealistic views that detach from reality. Please don't contribute to this false image people tend to paint on "liberals", as I am partially one.
Posted by: Hank Fox | November 7, 2008 4:06 PM
Heh.
Two weeks before the election, I realized that in some of my internal dialog, I was hearing MY words in Barack Obama's voice. I was already scripting imaginary speeches for him. Everybody wants a piece of the guy, even me. Had to remind myself to sit back for a bit.
I'm okay with Rahm Emanuel. Anybody who thinks Obama is gonna make any headway without people like him, good luck in that pleasant fantasy world -- I'll be here on Planet Earth when you get back.
Something I'll bet few others caught, but that I hope will send cold chills up the spines of the GOPers: When Obama's aunt was outed as an illegal resident a few days before the election, the Obama camp responded that all relevant laws should of course be followed. I wondered if Rush Limbaugh, or a lot of people from the Bush administration, suddenly had heart palpitations. If Obama is willing to leave even a close relative to the ministrations of the law, how much influential forgiveness can be expected for the Bush White House lawbreakers? Ooh, makes my heart happy to imagine it.
I suspect the next few years are going to be tougher than any of us imagine. I expect Obama to make mistakes. I expect him to make me unhappy. Frankly, I expect him to raise taxes in his second or third year, and I'm totally okay with that. I'd rather pay extra and have a country that works.
But I'm going to support Obama as much as possible, in pretty much everything he does, for at least the first couple of years.
First because for the first time in 8 years, I'll have a president who actually IS smarter than me.
Second because the right-wing hate machine will fight him every step of the way, heedlessly wrecking everything, just out of insane spite.
Third because Obama has to succeed, or the rest of us are screwed.
Posted by: jeff | November 7, 2008 4:11 PM
I've seen rumors of Kathleen McGinty (Ex PA DEP head) as EPA head too and I would like that a lot better than RFK.
Posted by: natural cynic | November 7, 2008 4:18 PM
One additional problem with RFK jr. as an environmental advocate is that he certainly takes after his father in a personal population explosion: he has six kids.
Posted by: Eric | November 7, 2008 4:21 PM
@ #17
That's why I wrote to Obama right after I read about this on Orac.
Posted by: ggab | November 7, 2008 4:25 PM
Hank Fox
"God" bless you!
I think PZ is having too many Carter flashbacks. I don't even mean that as a joke.
PZ you've been through this, and you got burned. We all get it. We understand.
This may seem like our generations Carter to you, but I think more of him than that. He's smart enough to know better. He's studied up on history and knows the mistakes that have been made.
For now I choose to have "faith" in him. I've got his back and I believe that he's got mine.
At the very least, I'm going to let him take office before I talk about what a bad job he's doing.
Try to relax for just a moment.
Posted by: Realist Golfer | November 7, 2008 4:25 PM
There is some good news though.....Writings by David Swanson
According to news reports, president elect Obama is considering for Labor Secretary three people who actually know something about labor and actually support the intended mission of the labor department, which is protecting the rights of laborers. And by laborers, I mean you. If you have not recently received a government bailout, you're one of us. Here's the short list:
•Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of House Education and Labor Committee
•Former Rep. David Bonior, member of Obama's Transition Economic Advisory Board
•Andy Stern, president of Service Employees International Union
Any of these men as Secretary of Labor would be a 180 degree reversal from the past eight years, during which the so-called labor department has done everything it could to damage the labor movement and the rights of working people.
The National Labor Relations Board has a majority of its seats vacant and waiting for appointments. If similar care is taken in making those appointments, we will be in for a whole new nation, and therefore world, assuming we can all survive long enough to reap the benefits of a reborn labor movement.
Congress is prepared to send to President Obama the Employee Free Choice Act, putting teeth into the legalization of the right to organize in your workplace.
While many of Obama's proposed appointments strike me as hugely misguided, the approach he is taking on labor appears ideal. Maybe that should tell us something. If the peace movement worked as well as the labor movement, or if the labor movement worked for peace, would Obama be considering people like Emanuel, Gates, and Powell for positions in his administration?
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | November 7, 2008 4:25 PM
Hey, what happened to Obama's open door government promises?
First policy meeting that may have a huge impact on all Americans next year, and it is a closed session whereby its participants were asked to not reveal the discussion to reporters...
Call me queer for calling the man out on one of his most prominent promises, but, ya know, someone's gotta state the obvious.
I say this because his first stand in front of reporters as president elect and he couldn't bring himself to state the obvious--
"America has been running on credit and paper money and we are now flat broke as a nation, so we're using money we don't have trying to run a military empire, and the only thing we can think of to do is borrow and print more money..."
Posted by: Sili | November 7, 2008 4:27 PM
Ooooooh! Please, please don't get my hopes up.When sticking my head into cloud-cuckoo-land I still see Clinton as chief prosecutor of the warcrimes tribunal. (I haven't the foggiest who one'd put as the judges, though.)
Posted by: Steve_C | November 7, 2008 4:35 PM
Hey Scott...
Ever notice how the market freaks out when someone says something it doesn't like.
A room full of potential Obama appointees bandying about ideas and worries in a public forum would be a disaster. Plus you'd get the Republicans making every thing a controversy.
It has nothing to do with secrecy.
What world do you live in Scott?
Posted by: Sid Schwab | November 7, 2008 4:36 PM
I agree about RFK: anyone who jumps on the mercury bandwagon disqualifies himself as far as I'm concerned. But the more I learn about Emanuel the more I like the pick. Here's one good article. In general, when you peel through a little, you sense a tough and smart guy who knows his way around but who is more centrist than you might think; and one willing to find common ground in the name of moving forward. Which is what Obama seems to be about.
Posted by: Richard | November 7, 2008 4:40 PM
Warriors, arise! Write to the Transition team and let them know you don't want RFK, Jr. anywhere in an Obama administration. I hate antivaccinationists with a passion, and I know you do too. Let's give them the knock-out punch!
Posted by: BruceJ | November 7, 2008 4:40 PM
Well, I'll be a contrarian. First, the post of COS is best in the hands of someone who knows where all the bodies are buried. To use a Godfather ref, Rahm will be a damn fine 'wartime consigliere'.
Second, while I agree with the criticism of RFK on the vaccination front, he's got a deep and abiding environmental interest that would, in my opinion make him a far better fit for Interior.
When my wife first heard the rumors on tv about RFK being considered, she called me in tears, tears of joy. This man had lead the fight to clean up the river she grew up on, the Hudson.
I think he would be a very good choice for defending our environment at Interior.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 7, 2008 4:41 PM
#19 Hans,
Thanks, I'll add that decision to my list of the supreme court's great failures, alongside the Dred Scott and Korematsu decisions.
-jcr
Posted by: clinteas | November 7, 2008 4:44 PM
@27,
That one cracked me up.
Rahm,although I dont know much about him,from what I read sounds like someone who gets shit done,and that cant be a bad thing,surely?
RFK,that would be a bit of a worry,see what happens.
Posted by: Rogue Epidemiologist | November 7, 2008 4:47 PM
The hippie earth-mamas at Mothering disagree with you, PZ. Perhaps you or allies would like to have a word with them?
(click name for link)
Posted by: Leigh Shryock | November 7, 2008 4:47 PM
I just sent in the following:
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 7, 2008 4:49 PM
#25 Mike,
I've heard that every Englishman who cared about their freedom has long since emigrated. Thanks for confirming it.
When one is compelled to work at another's command, one is not free. This is axiomatic, and it does not change if money is given for the work performed, or if the period of servitude is short. It also doesn't change if the work compelled is some task that most of the people in a country believe is a worthwhile thing to do.
You have no right to compel another person to work for you. Neither does a government.
-jcr
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 7, 2008 4:50 PM
Um no thanks. That place breeds stupidity and misinformation about vaccines.
Posted by: Jadehawk | November 7, 2008 4:52 PM
I don't mind Rahm in the position for which he's being proposed (assuming there won't be many other appointments along the same lines), for the reasons already mentioned by others: it does take an insider or two to actually push through new ideas.
But RFK is a massive FAIL. someone who opposes wind-farms because they'll "ruin the view" shouldn't be within spitting distance of the EPA. doesn't help that he has a basic lack of understanding of science, and sees conspiracies everywhere. I think I'd prefer Kathleen McGinty. She sounds a lot more sensible.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 7, 2008 4:56 PM
#37 Scott,
The sad thing is that today he's already called for a "stimulus package", just like Bush did. Inflation isn't a remedy for inflation.
Get ready for four more years of the same kind of economic incompetence that got us into this mess, boys and girls.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 7, 2008 4:58 PM
someone who opposes wind-farms because they'll "ruin the view" shouldn't be within spitting distance of the EPA
As it happens, the location of that proposed wind farm wasn't visible from the shore. The Kennedys were bitching about it because they like to sail their yachts out where the turbines would be.
-jcr
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 7, 2008 5:00 PM
Oh, well, then that's alright, then.
Posted by: Dahan | November 7, 2008 5:02 PM
Seems like Al Gore might be a better choice for EPA. What's he doing now days?
Posted by: Realist Golfer | November 7, 2008 5:05 PM
David Swanson on Rahm Emanuel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wob2RGMSjtk
Posted by: BobC | November 7, 2008 5:08 PM
President Obama, the greatest president in USA history, had a press conference today in Chicago, which is in these three YouTube videos:
Part 1 of 3
Part 2 of 3
Part 3 of 3
Posted by: Jadehawk | November 7, 2008 5:13 PM
all the more reason to keep the idiot out of the EPA... that would certainly be THE man to lift the EPA into prominence (and give some repubs an aneurysm), but I think the awareness campaign he's doing shouldn't be deprived of its head. having him as a sort of spokesman, or a liaison between the EPA and non-governmental environmental groups might be a good idea though.Posted by: Observer | November 7, 2008 5:16 PM
I agree that RFK jr. would be a terrible choice, but I'm very pleased with the choice of Rahm Emmanuel for Chief of Staff. Obama needs a tough guy, and I don't just mean for the republicans. I think Emmanuel was picked largely to keep his own party in line.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 7, 2008 5:17 PM
Any chance of Obama rolling back any of the Bush/Paulson/110th congress bender? (he asked, rhetorically)
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/129987.html
$2,063,800,000,000, or about $6800 for every man, woman and child in the USA. It's kind of disappointing that neither of the major party candidates had the guts to oppose it.
One would hope that on such a major issue as inflating our currency by two trillion dollars in about two months, the major parties would be on opposite sides.
-jcr
Posted by: Monado in Toronto | November 7, 2008 5:18 PM
Rahm: the president's Vice-Principal! The Principal strolls around looking administrative and the Vice-Principal puts the fear of punishment into fractious students.
Posted by: Dahan | November 7, 2008 5:18 PM
Sorry for my ignorance in this matter, but how do you set up a kill-file for someone like SFO? I love this site, but I just don't think I can handle seeing him (or others like him)write the same nonsense over and over, day after day, week after week, apparently forever (or at least until PZ rightly gives him the heave-ho for slagging and insipidity). I'd like to know how to block his idiocy from appearing on my screen.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 7, 2008 5:22 PM
Dahan, I haven;t done it but you need to be using firefox and then get the grease monkey plug in. After that there is a kill file plug in.
not sure how it all fits together as I have not done it, but I doubt it is hard.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 7, 2008 5:23 PM
To my great embarrassment, I have to agree with John C. Randolph. Conscription, for military or civilian service, is a serious violation of personal freedom. Of course, it isn't equivalent to slavery, and I neither know nor care whether it's contrary to the US constitution, but I'd certainly oppose its introduction in the UK by all peaceful means.
On Rahm - nasty piece of work, but probably effective, and as the saying has it, better to have him inside the tent pissing out. A chief of staff shouldn't have any policy influence, and my hunch is, won't with Obama.
On RFK: "Hey, hey, RFK, how many kids did you kill today?".
Posted by: Jadehawk | November 7, 2008 5:25 PM
well, I wrote them (in all fairness stating that I'm merely a worried bystander, not a citizen), and as soon the the boyfriend gets home, i'll try to get him to write, too.
Posted by: Dahan | November 7, 2008 5:31 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM,
Thanks for the heads up. Firefox isn't my usual choice, but I like it well enough. I'll look into it.
Posted by: Turing Eret | November 7, 2008 5:39 PM
The Chief of Staff position is necessarily one that needs a bulldog type persona and Rahm is a great choice for that. Whereas Barack Obama is the leader, the Chief of Staff is responsible for making sure others follow his lead. You need someone who is an aggressive and efficient manager, which Rahm Immanuel fits to a 't'.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 7, 2008 5:42 PM
Conscription, for military or civilian service, is a serious violation of personal freedom
Congratulations, Nick. There may be some hope for you yet.
I'd certainly oppose its introduction in the UK by all peaceful means.
I hope for your sake, that peaceful means would suffice. If not though, what exactly would be your limit?
There was a time when a man like Ghandhi could shame the British government into freeing his people. I'm not at all sure that's still the case.
-jcr
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 7, 2008 5:47 PM
Oh I'm sure you'll find many of us that agree with that.
Posted by: fatherdaddy | November 7, 2008 5:48 PM
I find it interesting that the President Elect, who was most like JFK in the aura created around him, is going to go for the son of JFK to help bring "change". This kind of change is exactly what we could do without. So much for the science candidate. So much for the new Camelot. It looks like the shine is wearing off of Obama pretty quickly. This is what I expected, though. That is why I couldn't vote for him and chose the other aging white guy (not McPalin). At least I can maintain my principals by voting for a guy who pays lip service (and I believe that is all he does) to real freedom. That's the nice thing about 3rd party candidates. They can never get to a position of power to prove me wrong.
Posted by: Natalie | November 7, 2008 5:50 PM
BruceJ, I disagree your suggestion of RFK, Jr. serving in any government post. While he may have had the occasional success in the past, the fact remains that he does not have the tempermant or understanding of empirical reasoning to be making decisions. He is a conspiracy theorist, which is hardly what we need in any cabinet position or as head of an agency, and he appears to be allergic to the entire concept of "evidence based".
On the specific subject of the Department of the Interior, EPA, etc - RFK, Jr's training is in law. What would make him qualified to pass judgment on scientific questions? The Sec. of the Interior would presumably be someone with experience in land management (assuming I remembered correctly what the Dept. of the Interior does). Similarly, I would assume that the head of the EPA would be someone with experience in pollution control or cleanup or something directly related. Not a lawyer.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 7, 2008 5:55 PM
I think Emmanuel was picked largely to keep his own party in line.
I'm curious why you would consider that a good thing.
The congress is not subordinate to the president. A congressman answers to his constituents, not to the executive. There's a reason for this arrangement. It's supposed to be a damper on the arbitrary exercise of power.
The relationship between the president and the congress, particularly with the members of his own party, should be one of cooperation between equals, not bullying from the white house.
-jcr
Posted by: Sili | November 7, 2008 5:57 PM
But bullying from Congress is just dandy?
Posted by: MikeM | November 7, 2008 6:03 PM
And now the 'necks are afeared that Hussein guy will take away guns:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/07/national/a105908S50.DTL
I'm happier than ever we elected Obama.
Posted by: Skeptyk | November 7, 2008 6:12 PM
Here's what I sent:
I understand there is talk of RFK, Jr as head of the EPA. This would be a bad move. Not only has he written broadly anti-scientific articles that have directly contributed to a hole in the herd immunity as he promotes nonsense about our vaccination program, but he continues with this behavior even after he has been notified of the facts, even after those who published his famous "Deadly Immunity" article (Rolling Stone and Salon) had to follow with numerous corrections.
We need a scientist at head of the EPA. A scientist who is also a lawyer, and/or an economist, and/or a poet, would be great, but a scientist, first and foremost, and one for whom scientific truth is ascendant value. RFK, Jr does not fit the bill.
RFK, Jr has, in the arrogance of his willful ignorance of vaccine science, dealt serious and continuing blows to our national health, especially that of our children.
My son is on dialysis. I think of him, both pre- and post-transplant, and the mortal danger that common childhood diseases pose to him. I think of our elders, people with AIDS, folks with chronic illness, and all our acquaintances on the dialysis unit, where we spend 20 hours a week. The drop in vaccination, for which RFK, Jr must take significant moral responsibility, has put all of these people in danger. And, it has put Barack Obama's daughters in danger, as well as all of our children, because herd immunity is as important to the the success of our public health programs as is individual vaccine response. This is a matter of basic science and grade school math.
RFK, Jr has exhibited continued contempt for facts in the area of vaccines, as well as other areas which you will no doubt hear from others about. It would be an oxymoron to appoint this man to the EPA. Environmental protection is closely linked to public health, and RFK, Jr has shown abysmal judgment and lack of critical thinking when it comes to perhaps our most successful, cost-effective public health measure, vaccination.
As a health care worker, as a resident of rural Vermont, as a parent, I think EPA is a critical agency, and think that the administrator of EPA should be full member of the president's cabinet. This is why I urge you to drop RFK, Jr from consideration for the post.
I hope you all had your flu shots.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | November 7, 2008 6:14 PM
"""Hey Scott...
Ever notice how the market freaks out when someone says something it doesn't like.
A room full of potential Obama appointees bandying about ideas and worries in a public forum would be a disaster. Plus you'd get the Republicans making every thing a controversy.
It has nothing to do with secrecy.
What world do you live in Scott?"""
I live in the world that didn't buy the Kool-Aid promised in the election. The economy has been in a downward spiral for a few years and the government up to the last kept denying there was a fundamental problem, fudging numbers and frankly, lying right into the cameras...
Obama said he would change all that, and of course, I knew he was lying.
Where are the transcripts for that meeting so we can begin to have open debate and transparency in government as promised?
I remember watching the diehard Bushlickers defending Bush's lies at every turn and every liberal shaking their fists and cursing like a cartoon...
Now we see the defenders coming from the other camp, defending Obama on his first act as president elect...
Change indeed.
BTW... the country is broke, the dollar is about to be ruined, the Chinese and Russia and the ME are in talks of a new currency backed by gold to replace the dollar which will limit our ability to ship our inflation overseas...
The solution? More debt and spending?
boggle boggle...
Posted by: Heliprogenus | November 7, 2008 6:19 PM
Here's what I wrote to the President Elect Transitional Office.
As a common and shared experience with many Americans, I am brimming with hope and excited to truly see progress towards some Administrative changes. In particular, my greatest hope is that Scientific progress steam-rolls ahead, and the carefully selected appointees are qualified candidates for their position. Yet, I am extremely disheartened and dissatisfied that anti-vaccine advocates like Robert F Kennedy Jr are being seriously considered for cabinet level positions. It is not a time to find shrewd politicians and select them to lead this country out of our current scientific drought. It is time to find individuals of true merit and bearing who understand the issues at deeper levels, much like President Elect Obama. I am hoping for an administration that is brimming with "elitists" such as academics, economists, populists who can truly represent our inherent needs. I understand the task is monumental, yet, we are on a precipice that needs to be treated within a narrow margin of advisable actions. In essence, there are only a few ways of truly reversing course in a short amount of time, but many countless ways to continue our stagnated progress, or worse, lead us further into the scientific and rational abyss. I am pleading, as a fervent supporter, and an American with hope beyond simple expression that those who are selected for their positions are done so on their abilities to reason and think with empirical foresight.
Posted by: Watchman | November 7, 2008 6:20 PM
Rev,
Hah! That's exactly why someone ought to have a word with 'em!
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 7, 2008 6:21 PM
the Chinese and Russia and the ME are in talks of a new currency backed by gold to replace the dollar which will limit our ability to ship our inflation overseas.
That would certainly be a game-changer. If Russia and China give us a new gold standard, they will have done more for freedom that I would have ever thought possible given their history.
Sound money would mean a very sharp reduction in the power of governments all over the world. When they can't just inflate money to pay all the soldiers and bureaucrats and bribes they want, they'll have to become responsive to their people.
-jcr
Posted by: fatherdaddy | November 7, 2008 6:37 PM
As someone on the fringes of the Libertarian plantation, I think the gold standard is impractical. There isn't enough gold to cover the value of our money supply, as it is. Don't fool yourself into thinking it'll cover the rest of the world, too. Inflation is bad, but, too tight a money supply can be worse. The world doesn't need that kind of jolt at this time.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | November 7, 2008 6:44 PM
Rahm Emmanuel is the type who always seems to put party over ideology- his talents are better utilized as Obama's "fist" while Obama is the "brains" and "heart" of the Democratic Party.
RFK has a checkered career, while he is abysmal on vaccines and hypocritical on that offshore wind farm, he has accomplished a lot towards cleaning up the Hudson. Maybe a position in Interior would get him off the vaccine subject.
We need a scientist at head of the EPA. A scientist who is also a lawyer, and/or an economist, and/or a poet, would be great, but a scientist, first and foremost, and one for whom scientific truth is ascendant value. RFK, Jr does not fit the bill.
It's just a pity that Buckaroo Banzai was a fictional character!
Posted by: John Robie | November 7, 2008 7:07 PM
Rahm Emmanuel is an excellent choice. Obama is inspiring and can move huge numbers, but that won't impress DC. He needs someone who can walk behind him carrying the axe.
"Embrace my message of change or my friend will cut your f-ing legs out from under you."
Now THAT'S change I can believe in.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 7, 2008 7:13 PM
Ehem. Just saying... I have an internal monolog, what with it being internal and all. :->
Well put.
Harrrr!!!
Now, that would be poetic justice. No matter which Clinton, actually. B-) B-) B-)
Me three. Forced labor is forced labor. :-|
So? Why then has the