It's an interesting pick and sets Larry Summers up to replace Ben Bernanke, who will most certainly NOT re-up to the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board. Geithner is a Johns Hopkins grad. Summers, of course, is past president of Harvard and took his PhD there. This may be the breaking of the Chicago stranglehold on top economic positions in this country. They were and are wrong. QED.
With current Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Mr. Bernanke, Mr. Geithner, as chief of the Federal Reserve Bank in the city that is headquarters to the financial industry, has been part of a troika that has struggled this year to contain the credit crisis.
I'm surprised, too, that peoples heads are not exploding further since Geithner and Summers both worked for the Clinton administration. It appears many Obama supporters really wanted to avoid all things Clinton.
Not going to happen, I guess.
(Which is obviously fine with me.)
It's all a guessing game, no, actually a confidence game.
Will the stock market crash when Obama appoints HRC as Sec of State? Just kidding. I'm pretty sure financiers don't care who is selected for Sec of State.
Submitted by michael kaplan on Sat, 2008/11/22 - 1:47pm.
remember that summers was forced to resign from harvard over his resistance to a living wage for campus workers (students occupied the administration building) and gender-related slurs.
Submitted by Mykhailo on Sun, 2008/11/23 - 12:46pm.
remember that summers was forced to resign from harvard over his resistance to a living wage for campus workers (students occupied the administration building) and gender-related slurs.
Why am I supposed to care? This is about a position as chair of the Fed, not Labor Secretary, or EEOC chair.
Submitted by tennesseevalues... on Sun, 2008/11/23 - 8:01am.
I'm surprised, too, that peoples heads are not exploding further since Geithner and Summers both worked for the Clinton administration. It appears many Obama supporters really wanted to avoid all things Clinton.
I don't know why anyone would have expected for his administration to not have Clintonians in it. Where did they think he was going to find experienced Democrats? I'm sure there are a few survivors from the Carter administration still available, but I'd imagine that the ones with experience in the Johnson and Kennedy administrations are getting pretty thin on the ground.
And besides, incorporating part of the Bill Clinton administration into your framework can't be nearly as bad for the country as incorporating parts of the Richard Nixon administration as been. Not that anyone cared much when the last three Republican presidents seemed to reach out to the ghosts and plumbers of Watergate to help them run the country. I mean, the last 8 years under Bush/Cheney/Ghost of Nixon have been swell, haven't they?
I guess it gives people something to complain about. I suppose they expected he'd be picking the cabinet from his Senate office staff.
I think those who voted for Obama thinking he was a far-left radical will be the ones most disappointed in his first term. Obama will very likely run an administration that is quite centrist. The best clues for how he would serve as an administrator were never found in his Senate career, they were found in his experience as president of the Harvard Law Review. He will be more like Bill Clinton in his ability to work and compromise with the GOP. This is not a bad thing.
I don't know why anyone would have expected for his administration to not have Clintonians in it.
What's really going on is the right-wing echo chamber was expecting Obama to appoint Bill Ayers, Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan and his Kenyan aunt to his Cabinet, and their cognitive dissonance over his non-radical appointments is getting filtered, like everything must, through the partisan brain inverter and getting translated into "Obama supporters must be outraged that he is not bringing change."
Ding. Ding. Ding. What's lost on that crowd is that bringing Torquemada back from the dead alone to run our justice system would be a progressive change from the current Satan's minions torturing teenagers in Guantanamo.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
What's really going on is the right-wing echo chamber was expecting Obama to appoint Bill Ayers, Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan and his Kenyan aunt to his Cabinet, and their cognitive dissonance over his non-radical appointments is getting filtered, like everything must, through the partisan brain inverter and getting translated into "Obama supporters must be outraged that he is not bringing change."
Well, you see, that's one of the classic intellectually dishonest debating tactics -- define what your opponents must believe, express surprise when they don't live up to your definitions, and demand that their opponents' supporters be outraged at the "failure" of their leaders.
To give s silly example: "all liberals just love to eat puppies. But what did I see on CNN today -- footage of B. Hussein Obama eating a kitten. How can he betray his puppy-eating supporters like this? Where is the liberal outrage?"
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Larry Summers: Larry Summers was forced out over the sexist comments. The living wage initiative had nothing to do with it and was a side circus. Universities are notoriously exploitative of their workers in terms of wage at every pay level other than highest management and athletics. See UT. Why hasn't Petersen been forced out at UT? Why hasn't UT's Living Wage movement occupied the administration's office. Note the source of that article and that what a world it would be if UT actually had an independent college newspaper. Anyhow, Larry Summers is an asshole. Being an asshole doesn't disqualify one for a job.
Clintonians: Yeah, it's disturbing, but they are a hell of a sight compared to the den of scum and villains that you are up against right now. I am sure that Wall Street is shrieking over the Geithner pick.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Submitted by RayCapps on Mon, 2008/11/24 - 10:34am.
was a very poor choice of words about a very real - and as yet unresolved - question regarding possible biological differences in the way male and female brains work. However, confusing his "intrinsic aptitude" comment with a suggestion he believes women are intellectually inferior grossly misrepresents both his unfortunate remarks and his real beliefs.
I have neither the necessary background nor the gross stupidity to wade into the validity of the theory. I do know a few (very few) things about it that have been regularly misconstrued:
1. It is not saying females cannot excel in math, science, or engineering.
2. It is not saying females should be discouraged from pursuing careers in these fields.
3. It is not saying males, taken collectively, are smarter than females, taken collectively.
4. It is not even saying the very best and brightest males in these fields are going to better than the very best and brightest females.
5. What the theory does say is that males, statistically speaking, are more left brain dominant and somewhat more likely to gravitate toward and excel at left brain activities like math and science. The same theory says that females, statistically speaking, are more right brain dominant and somewhat more likely to gravitate toward and excel in right brain activities like communications, art... and politics.
6. What the theory is about is self-selection, or individual preference. It's saying that there is likely to be a disproportionate number of males in fields like math and science because men naturally tend to gravitate toward these areas of study.
It is controversial because there is a competing theory that says females are subtly discouraged from pursuing math and science careers during the overall educational process. It seems to me to be a false either/or choice. There's nothing to prevent both theories from being correct or both theories from being false for that matter. From within the academic community, there is a pretty strong preference for the "discouraged" theory, mostly, imho, because that theory allows the possibility of parity in math and science being achieved. It suggests a "correctable" problem, unlike the brain dominance theory that suggests a natural, and rather intractible, disparity.
The good former president of Harvard may or may not be right in championing the brain dominance theory. He was certainly unfortunate that his own brain chose to use the word "aptitude" rather than "preference." But that hardly makes him the sexist pig others would have him made out to be.
Interesting.
With current Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Mr. Bernanke, Mr. Geithner, as chief of the Federal Reserve Bank in the city that is headquarters to the financial industry, has been part of a troika that has struggled this year to contain the credit crisis.
I'm surprised, too, that peoples heads are not exploding further since Geithner and Summers both worked for the Clinton administration. It appears many Obama supporters really wanted to avoid all things Clinton.
Not going to happen, I guess.
(Which is obviously fine with me.)
It's all a guessing game, no, actually a confidence game.
Will the stock market crash when Obama appoints HRC as Sec of State? Just kidding. I'm pretty sure financiers don't care who is selected for Sec of State.
remember that summers was forced to resign from harvard over his resistance to a living wage for campus workers (students occupied the administration building) and gender-related slurs.
Link...
remember that summers was forced to resign from harvard over his resistance to a living wage for campus workers (students occupied the administration building) and gender-related slurs.
Why am I supposed to care? This is about a position as chair of the Fed, not Labor Secretary, or EEOC chair.
more details on larry summers' tenure at harvard and his forced resignation.
Thanks, michael. An Obama mistake in picking his team? I'm surprised there haven't been a lot of complaints about this selection.
Once again, the the tv networks are choosing the news to focus on for the masses. It's all Hillary all the time.
I don't know why anyone would have expected for his administration to not have Clintonians in it. Where did they think he was going to find experienced Democrats? I'm sure there are a few survivors from the Carter administration still available, but I'd imagine that the ones with experience in the Johnson and Kennedy administrations are getting pretty thin on the ground.
And besides, incorporating part of the Bill Clinton administration into your framework can't be nearly as bad for the country as incorporating parts of the Richard Nixon administration as been. Not that anyone cared much when the last three Republican presidents seemed to reach out to the ghosts and plumbers of Watergate to help them run the country. I mean, the last 8 years under Bush/Cheney/Ghost of Nixon have been swell, haven't they?
I guess it gives people something to complain about. I suppose they expected he'd be picking the cabinet from his Senate office staff.
I think those who voted for Obama thinking he was a far-left radical will be the ones most disappointed in his first term. Obama will very likely run an administration that is quite centrist. The best clues for how he would serve as an administrator were never found in his Senate career, they were found in his experience as president of the Harvard Law Review. He will be more like Bill Clinton in his ability to work and compromise with the GOP. This is not a bad thing.
I don't know why anyone would have expected for his administration to not have Clintonians in it.
What's really going on is the right-wing echo chamber was expecting Obama to appoint Bill Ayers, Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan and his Kenyan aunt to his Cabinet, and their cognitive dissonance over his non-radical appointments is getting filtered, like everything must, through the partisan brain inverter and getting translated into "Obama supporters must be outraged that he is not bringing change."
Ding. Ding. Ding. What's lost on that crowd is that bringing Torquemada back from the dead alone to run our justice system would be a progressive change from the current Satan's minions torturing teenagers in Guantanamo.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Well, you see, that's one of the classic intellectually dishonest debating tactics -- define what your opponents must believe, express surprise when they don't live up to your definitions, and demand that their opponents' supporters be outraged at the "failure" of their leaders.
To give s silly example: "all liberals just love to eat puppies. But what did I see on CNN today -- footage of B. Hussein Obama eating a kitten. How can he betray his puppy-eating supporters like this? Where is the liberal outrage?"
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Larry Summers: Larry Summers was forced out over the sexist comments. The living wage initiative had nothing to do with it and was a side circus. Universities are notoriously exploitative of their workers in terms of wage at every pay level other than highest management and athletics. See UT. Why hasn't Petersen been forced out at UT? Why hasn't UT's Living Wage movement occupied the administration's office. Note the source of that article and that what a world it would be if UT actually had an independent college newspaper. Anyhow, Larry Summers is an asshole. Being an asshole doesn't disqualify one for a job.
Clintonians: Yeah, it's disturbing, but they are a hell of a sight compared to the den of scum and villains that you are up against right now. I am sure that Wall Street is shrieking over the Geithner pick.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
I don't know why exactly, I just sort of had it in my head he'd put Robert Atkinson in that post.
I figure a few weeks of working around HRC and Summers will figure out that women are not intellectual inferiors.
___________________________________
"Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse."
was a very poor choice of words about a very real - and as yet unresolved - question regarding possible biological differences in the way male and female brains work. However, confusing his "intrinsic aptitude" comment with a suggestion he believes women are intellectually inferior grossly misrepresents both his unfortunate remarks and his real beliefs.
I have neither the necessary background nor the gross stupidity to wade into the validity of the theory. I do know a few (very few) things about it that have been regularly misconstrued:
1. It is not saying females cannot excel in math, science, or engineering.
2. It is not saying females should be discouraged from pursuing careers in these fields.
3. It is not saying males, taken collectively, are smarter than females, taken collectively.
4. It is not even saying the very best and brightest males in these fields are going to better than the very best and brightest females.
5. What the theory does say is that males, statistically speaking, are more left brain dominant and somewhat more likely to gravitate toward and excel at left brain activities like math and science. The same theory says that females, statistically speaking, are more right brain dominant and somewhat more likely to gravitate toward and excel in right brain activities like communications, art... and politics.
6. What the theory is about is self-selection, or individual preference. It's saying that there is likely to be a disproportionate number of males in fields like math and science because men naturally tend to gravitate toward these areas of study.
It is controversial because there is a competing theory that says females are subtly discouraged from pursuing math and science careers during the overall educational process. It seems to me to be a false either/or choice. There's nothing to prevent both theories from being correct or both theories from being false for that matter. From within the academic community, there is a pretty strong preference for the "discouraged" theory, mostly, imho, because that theory allows the possibility of parity in math and science being achieved. It suggests a "correctable" problem, unlike the brain dominance theory that suggests a natural, and rather intractible, disparity.
The good former president of Harvard may or may not be right in championing the brain dominance theory. He was certainly unfortunate that his own brain chose to use the word "aptitude" rather than "preference." But that hardly makes him the sexist pig others would have him made out to be.
Post new comment