5 ms·
Neither the article nor the policy mention anything about speaking up against the status quo. They appear instead to be looking for "conflicts of interest" and
by jsdalton 18y ago
Neither the article nor the policy mention anything about speaking up against the status quo. They appear instead to be looking for "conflicts of interest" and "possible sources of embarrassment."
There's a difference.
- Alex3917 18y agoWhat do you take "possible sources of embarrassment" to mean in the context of one's personal diary or blog?
- modoc 18y agoRacist comments, photos of you doing lines off a hooker's ass, getting "McCain 2008" tattooed on your forehead, etc...
- Alex3917 18y agoYes but I think he's already severed his connections with Reverend Wright.
- jsdalton 18y agoMy personal definition would be "anything you wouldn't be comfortable seeing splashed across the masthead of The Drudge Report."
- tptacek 18y agoThe proposed National Parks Director writing a personal essay about why we should turn them into private game reserves? The proposed HUD director writing that HUD should fund plasma TVs in public housing?
- Alex3917 18y agoSo, basically, have you had any ideas you weren't supposed to have? (Or spoken up against the status quo, as I said originally.)
- modoc 18y agoI'd think that speaking up against the status quo is fine, as long as your goals are in line with the new administration's goals. It would make no sense to appoint someone who wants to push an opposing agenda.
- Alex3917 18y agoIIRC Lincoln did.
- tptacek 18y agoNo, that's a gross oversimplification. Re-read Doris Kearns Goodwin. Lincoln appointed his political rivals in the Republican Party to his cabinet. He did not appoint secessionists. And his strategy was imperfect: despite his immense political talents, he was still hurt by defectors and infighting. On the other hand, slipshod vetting damaged two recent political figures: Clinton's cabinet nominations in '92, and McCain's selection of Palin this year. Obama was elected to do a job. You may want him to do some other job, like uniting the political parties or greating a great National Salon so we can debate libertarianism and socialism and economics rationally. That's not the job he's undertaken now.
- Alex3917 18y agoWasn't one of Clinton's picks given flak for having written something saying that kids should be taught about masturbation as part of the school sex ed curriculum? It seems to me that that's actually the perfect example of filtering out people who have spoken up against the status quo.
- tptacek 18y agoDonna Shalala. Yes. But even if I agree that that's a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss in the public record, I can still concede that the administration shouldn't waste time picking fights with the ~15MM people (and their ~100 elected representatives) that have a huge problem with that. And it's all relative. If Warren Buffet wrote an article about teaching masturbation in a sex ed curricula, they'd still put him up for Sec T. If you're someone with no name recognition going up for a post that's not a top priority and there are 20 other reasonable candidates for the spot, your outre positions are going to be more of an issue. This all seems reasonable to me. I don't expect Obama to suspend thermodynamics; nothing's going to be 100% efficient, and I want health care fixed more than I want to watch epic media debates.
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y agoI believe "possible sources of embarrassment" is about limiting one's susceptibility to blackmail. Pretty standard for security clearances.