Now on ScienceBlogs: The Galaxy's Biggest Valentine

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Thoughts from Kansas

You will notice that it lacks definiteness; that it lacks purpose; that it lacks coherence; that it lacks a subject to talk about; that it is loose and wabbly; that it wanders around; that it loses itself early and does not find itself any more. --Mark Twain

Search

Profile

Josh at work Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at the National Center for Science Education. He is formerly a doctoral candidate at the University of Kansas, in the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. When not battling creationists or modeling species ranges, he writes about developments in progressive politics and the sciences.

The opinions expressed here are his own, do not reflect the official position of the NCSE. Indeed, older posts may no longer reflect his own official position.

Sb/DonorsChoose Drive


Thanks!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Subscribe to TfK:

Accolades

Best of Kansas City

Good posts from history

The Birth of Intelligent Falling

A failure of Intelligent Design

Why it's called Intelligent Design Creationism

Write a letter to the editor

My photo albums.

Support TfK

Buy me things from my Amazon.com wishlist.

Buy yourself things!

Search Now:
Search Amazon.com
Add yourself to the Frappr map!
Check out our Frappr or add yourself to it!

    follow me on Twitter

    « Science educator "Expelled!," Disco Inst remains silent | Main | Late week limericks »

    Synecdoche, redux

    Category: Policy and Politics
    Posted on: December 5, 2007 7:47 PM, by Josh Rosenau

    For a while, I had this plan to follow up on my synecdoche post from a few days ago with a post about the revelation that the Bush administration actually knew that Iran stopped its nuclear program in 2003, and had known that for months, while still ratcheting up the rhetoric. I was going to make the point that the criticism of Bush in that regard is, again, synecdoche. The problem isn't that Bush is a warmonger who will do whatever he must to invade Middle Eastern nations, the problem is that the administration he represents is a pack of mendacious warmongers who would rather send our children off to die than admit the slightest error.

    But then Joe Biden inadvertently offered a different hypothesis:

    If that’s true [that the President was unaware of the NIE saying that Iran had stopped its nuclear program], he has the most incompetent staff in … modern American history and he’s one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history.
    While Biden thinks "that’s not believable," I'm kinda rethinking things. Michael Deutsch was a college dropout appointed NASA, and used his position to rewrite reports by NASA scientists. Lizzette Reynolds, then-Governor Bush's legislative aide and a staffer in his federal Department of Education thinks that the Texas Education Agency should be neutral about whether nonscientific ideas like creationism should be presented in science classes. George Tenet used to run the CIA, and he thought it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program. Condoleeza Rice inspired a brand new verb in Hebrew. Lecondel means to run around having lots of meetings without accomplishing anything. George W. Bush looked into Vladimir Putin's soul and saw something other than the reincarnation of Stalin. Can we call any of these folks competent?

    It's disturbingly plausible that this administration (or at least the political appointees), from the President on down, is grossly incompetent. It also gives us a reason why this challenge is unanswered, nearly 5 years later:

    give me one single example of something with the following three characteristics:

    1. It is a policy initiative of the current Bush administration
    2. It was significant enough in scale that I'd have heard of it (at a pinch, that I should have heard of it)
    3. It wasn't in some important way completely fucked up during the execution.

    Disappointing, isn't it?

    Share on Facebook
    Share on StumbleUpon
    Share on Facebook

    TrackBacks

    TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/57604

    Comments

    1

    While I fully agree that Bush is grossly incompetent and that many of his appointees may well be too, I think you also need to take into consideration the extreme influence on him by Cheney and the neocons.

    I think that history will show that one of the overarching strategies of the neocons has been to create various rationales (ie, new wars, new security threats) for perpetually pumping up the defense, intelligence, and security budgets. This serves both to enrich themselves and their supporters, but also provides their justification for the long-term plan of reducing federal expenditure, regulation and influence on domestic affairs and the economy.

    Posted by: chezjake | December 6, 2007 9:07 AM

    2

    I don't know why Biden would find it unbelievable. From a purely objective standpoint, modern presidents must necessarily vary in competence, so one of them has to be the least competent.

    I would think that Pierce, Polk, and Buchanan would be considered early presidents, and Hayes is what, middle-period? Even if we extend the modern period back as far as Taft (hello, Philippines!), who are the other candidates for "most incompetent"? Hoover? Carter? Not even in the same ballpark.

    It's not so much that Bush is the least competent modern president, but that he is less competent than his nearest competitor by such a wide margin.

    Posted by: HP | December 6, 2007 6:52 PM

    3

    "... give me one single example ...":

    Transforming the Supreme Court into a strong conservative force.

    I don't think you can count the Harriet Miers fiasco as having completely fucked it up.

    Posted by: not completely useless | December 7, 2007 12:00 PM

    4

    The Bushies are not incompetent, they are anticompetent, but they like you too think that they are merely incompetent.

    Posted by: eric swan | December 8, 2007 10:54 AM

    Post a Comment

    (Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





    ScienceBlogs

    Search ScienceBlogs:

    Go to:

    Advertisement
    Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

    © 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.