Slashdot Mirror
Ridge, Homeland Security Head, Steps Down
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."
I guess I spent too long in the john: I'm gone 5 minutes and Rummy is history?
Or not....
Can't find anything on news.google.com
Rumsfeld resigned? Where the frig did you read that?
The article mentions, as is conventional wisdom, that he'll stay on for a few years to oversee operations in Iraq and transitions to national elections (assuming they ever happen). Of course, they were saying the same thing about Powell before the election.
http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/secdef_bio.html
Maybe this story is from the future.
-- ladies and gentlemen we are floating in space!
No, not really.
... except for the Presidency, that is.
This kind of thing always goes on between terms. No one wants to get stuck in the same job for 8 years
sigs, as if you care.
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.
What's the count of high-level government offices that have resigned in the past two months? It should be getting pretty high, I'd say. I said before that some voters might have hindsight about the rest of the government's attitude for working under Bush... now I wonder if Bush himself is wondering what the hell is going on?
To play Devil's advocate, though, all of the positions that have resigned have been high-stress positions, and many of them didn't plan to work a second term anyway. Who knows.
- dshaw
He was the funniest guy to watch in the cabinet! Who else is going to cause so much controversy by saying something like "old Europe?"
Anyway, for you conspiracy theorists out there, maybe Ridge left because he wanted to get higher up in the order of succession (you can't get much lower than the last cabinet position created)...
If Donald Rumsfeld resigned, then this is the first I've heard of it, and it's time for me to go singing and dancing in the streets until the police haul me to the drunk tank.
I know Slashdot is as reputable as Fox News, but come on guys, it's not like the submitter included gratuitous Anti-Microsoft or Anti-SCO (same thing?!) stuff...
[o]_O
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.
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.
I don't understand your argument at all.
I'm not trying to be glib, but I don't understand:
Maybe I'm dense before coffee? Please help me out.
sigs, as if you care.
Or do all these resignations bear a resemblance to rats leaving a sinking ship?
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
There is a steady supply of teenagers turning 18. More than enough of those will join the army and provide the brute force needed to fufill the imperial ambitions of the White House (and that is keeping in mind that, true to his campaign promise in 2000, GWB is not interested in "nation building", shock and awe is the preffered strategy).
That aside, imagine how different the public's reaction to these agressive wars would be if the army was drafted instead of all volunteer. Remember Vietnam? Do you think there would have been such widespread protests, and national sympathy for the anti-war cause, if we had fought that war with a volunteer army?
And come on, the policymakers in DC don't want their own kids, their people, fighting in the war. Nowadays it would be tougher to sneak in draft exemptions for the rich and powerful.
And the ex-governor. He started with nothing and created a monolithic mess
It's worth mentioning that prior to his postition of 'protecting' us, as governer of PA Ridge was responsible for over 200 execution orders. He was one of those guys who was just a little to eager to execute the bad guys (who just happen to be dispraportionaly black). Kinda like another prominent politician I can think of.
There is an interesting correlation between presidents and their respective turnover rates that should also be taken into account.
Could you explain this statement? The only correlation that I see is that recent Presidents have higher number of resignations than those in the past, but that doesn't seem to be your meaning. This change over time probably reflects a changing political culture with the addition of a few cabinet posts as a contributing factor (Eisenhower had 10 Cabinet Secretaries, GWB has 15 in addition to another 6 "cabinet level" positions).
The Bush administration thus far has been notable in it's very low turnover in the Cabinet. In his first term only 2 cabinet positions changed hands, historically quite low. This is probably due to a desire for continuity and a sense of urgency after 9/11. The result is that some cabinet members that would have resigned earlier are taking the changeover as an opportunity to get out.
Another factor in this spate of changes is that W. is impatient to press his political advantage coming out of the election. Unlike most second term presidents who are content to rest on their laurels Bush actually has a farily aggressive policy agenda for his second term and feels the need to hit the ground running. People like Powell that wanted to hang around for a 6 months or more to tie up loose ends are being pushed to get out to clear the decks for their successors. Bush's perception is that he has two years to accomplish anything. After the 2006 midterm elections he will be a true lame duck with no leverage. He wants the team he will be playing with for those two vital years in place immediately... no hanging around unless you intend to stay on through '06. Resign now and do it quickly so approval of the full slate of nominees can be the incoming congresses first order of business.
Not likely. All the upper echelon of the millitary remebers the draft. Believe me when I say they are much happier with a voluteer force. Any commander would rather lead a group of motivated volunteers than a group of unmotivated draftees. If they start having problems getting enough they will increase the education incentives and signing bonuses.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
Yeah, because there's nothing more the DoD wants to spend money on than training a whole bunch of n00bs, especially those hostile to the idea. Why would they want to spend it instead on medical benefits and retaining those folks that know what they're doing?
Meh, I've heard a lot of people saying that they're happy Ridge stepped down and that they disagreed with his politics. Well, I'd be surprised if most liberal-minded persons liked anybody in the post of Homeland Security minister given the mandate given to that department from the President.
That being said, while sometimes cabinet shakedowns are good, I'd argue that Bush is just using this to reinforce his neo-con philsophy even more so than he did before. Witness the replacement of Ashcroft with somebody (in my humble opinion) is even worse than he is.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
It's highly likely, in fact, that some form of economic conscription will come into play (if it hasn't already). If the economy tanks and the unemployment rate rises savagely, the defence forces begin to look fairly attractive, particularly to people with few skills. (That was certainly the case when I joined the Australian Army in 1977).
What a long, strange trip it's been.
Any nations that would strictly adhere to the Geneva Convetions are very unlikely to go to war with each other and in modern terms war is only likely to happen where one or both sides do not voluntarily adhere to the Geneva Convetions.
Popular support has nothing to do with terrorism, terrorism is all about forcing the populace to obey via fear and intimidation, hence terrorism.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I didn't notice the oil price dropping significantly (you must look at different numbers from the rest of the world), but the stock market will pick up from "certainty" (the certainty that the evil-hearted fuckers who own you are still in control, and will sodomise you yet again). Employument figures are _always_ fraudulent, so you can ignore that. Face it - you've been fucked over. Again.
What a long, strange trip it's been.