Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ridge, Homeland Security Head, Steps Down

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the greener-fields dept.

WeAz writes "According to MSNBC, Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge has decided to call it quits. 'Ridge, the seventh officer to leave Bush's Cabinet so far, oversaw the most significant government reorganization in 50 years.' Ridge joins Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Ashcroft as the newest cabinet member to resign from their office."

5 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. This could be good... by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's just about as many people who left Clinton's cabinet in between terms. I'm hoping it means they think their jobs are done and there's nothing major looming on the horizon that any of them feel like they need to be a part of.

    The opposite option: they're getting out while they can. I can't really believe that though. They've already worked through one of the most polarizing administrations in quite a long time (i'm no history buff), they're probably just tired. If the Bush administration is planning on anything more "interesting" (May you live in interesting times. --Confucious) than this whole Iraq thing, well, I'd be impressed.

    --
    Direct away from face when opening.
    1. Re:This could be good... by dhilvert · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While it may be the case, as you suggest, that the resignations were motivated by personal satisfaction with future prospects for the country, or fear of future prospects, the possibility that they were in fact motivated by the past performance of the administration, or by their own past performance, should perhaps not be too hastily ruled out.

  2. Re:Yes, but not quite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Liberals are quick to pounce on these cabinet level resignations as fool-proof evidence of a failed presidency.

    Any time I see someone make blanket statements like "liberals do X" or "conservatives do Y," I tune them out. Whatever your intent may be, it comes across like you can't make a argument to support your point without ad hominem and stereotyping.

    Next time you're in a political discussion of some sort, try making your points without using either plural term "liberals" or "conservatives." Where you would have said those things, write a short clause describing the viewpoints you agree/don't agree with instead . It's amazing not only how much better your argument will seem, and how much more intellectually honest your argument will be, but how much more likely you'll be to persuade people who don't initially agree with you.

  3. Thank you for reminding me, but. . . by Nomihn0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I share your opinion on stereotyping and how to avoid it. I do occasionally succumb to partisan pressure, gleefully lashing out at prominent figures with trashy one-liners, but that is not my preferred method of political discourse. The motivation for using the phrase "liberals do X" was, ironically enough, to appeal to the very crowd you accused me of being a member of. Sometimes, one must work from within the system to garner sufficient respect and attention to be able to breed resistance against the status quo.

    I take no offense. In fact, I greatly appreciate your comment, o Anonymous Coward, for the content that is so rarely purveyed by Slashdot members. The only flaw is the fact that the subject was not news to me. I had originally prefaced the term "liberal" with a disambiguating comment on the order of "A sizable bloc of partisan progressive voters have, in standard knee-jerk reflex, pounced on these cabinet level resignations as fool-proof evidence of a failed presidency." However, I removed it in an attempt to be less verbose - as well as to appeal to a wider, less politically correct, audience. Although this sentence also stereotypes, I feel that it does so to a lesser extent as it is neither all-encompassing nor targeting a defined subgroup of those who vote Democrat or Green more often than they do Republican or (arguably) Libertarian.

    Now, let me say one thing on the topic of avoiding blanket political terms entirely: I cannot fully agree with you. These terms are invented, and often cast off just as quickly, because of their functionality in plebeian conversation. If you were to be stopped on the street randomly, you might be asked your party affiliation or your political leanings. In such circumstances, and I consider Slashdot to be an analogous time-sensitive circumstance, convenience often trumps accuracy. So, instead of saying "I am an ardent supporter of equality in society, including the gender/sex/race/creed blind bestowing of civil liberties upon all of humankind, who also wishes government to make greater monetary and political investments in the normalization of the standards of living in this country, eliminating the disparity between rich and poor, while still maintaining the exquisite freedom and right to individuality granted us by our constitution.", I might simply state "I would consider myself a social liberal. If you need more information, ask me now, otherwise I will tune you out, attending to my doughnut instead."

    Now that you're confident that no flame war was incited by your reply, would you mind responding to this post using your Slashdot UID? I'm curious about what else have said or have left to say.

    1. Re:Thank you for reminding me, but. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The motivation for using the phrase "liberals do X" was, ironically enough, to appeal to the very crowd you accused me of being a member of. Sometimes, one must work from within the system to garner sufficient respect and attention to be able to breed resistance against the status quo.

      Maybe. To me, though, behaving a certain way in political discourse tends to legitimize that manner of discourse. Case-in-point: the brutality and quick-dig nature of nearly all TV and radio political commentary in the US today. People do it because it seems OK to do, and it seems OK to do because people have been doing it. But on this point, John Stewart, in his appearance on Crossfire, was spot on: by making careful, respectful, rigorous discussion harder to occur, it hurts us rather than helps us. I don't mean to put you in the same boat as the hosts of Crossfire. But I do mean to encourage you (and anyone else reading, including myself) to consider not only what our arguments are, but how we pitch them. It's not about being PC. It's just that when we show respect while we make our points, our "adversaries" (for lack of a better term) are less likely to dismiss what we say without thinking about it.

      From the rest of your post, it's clear you know this; I just want to encourage us all to try hard to live it. Even if it looks like a losing battle.

      Now that you're confident that no flame war was incited by your reply, would you mind responding to this post using your Slashdot UID?

      Hey, not everyone here has one.