Couldn't be more right, Gio. Warren Buffet may just have been lucky, but more likely he knows SOMETHING about handling money. And the Google crew isn't doing so badly either. Speaking as an academician, I can say that relying entirely on them is kind of stupid, except in math, where there is no "real world" to worry about.

Mylene wrote:

A friend of mine had this on her LJ and I couldn't pass up sharing it as it completely cracked me up last night.

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i283/ … tesha5.gif

XD Win. *saves*

My best friend and I watched the returns, each with a bottle of alcohol of our choice. For him, vanilla schnapps, and for me, cherry UV. Yeah, we're wimps when it comes to booze. Anyway, it was a great night.

Biokraze, you're pic is awesome too. *also saves*

Here, for those who like silly 4chan memes:

Barack Obama is not the only one going to the White House!  In the weeks since his election (can you believe it's only been three weeks this Tuesday?) he's been putting together a crack team of advisors and Cabinet officers.  Here's what's been reported, in order of presidential succession.

Secretary of State -- Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
I'm still not a Hillary fan, but this is a good pick.  The Secretary of State's most important job is as our top diplomat, and the Clintons represent a more peaceful, cooperative time in American history to the world abroad.  She has built-in recognition and credibility that other candidates, even someone like former U.N. Ambassador and seven-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee Richard Holbrooke, would have had to work harder for.  Plus this position puts Clinton just four heartbeats away from the presidency, so if she can manage to engineer the simultaneous deaths of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Robert Byrd, she will become president.  Good for her.

Secretary of the Treasury -- Timothy Geithner (D-New York Fed president)
No, not a Google founder   I don't know much about Geithner.  According to his Wikipedia article, he's never run a business, but he does have two decades' experience doing all kinds of work for the Treasury Department.  I can tell you that Wall Street seems to like him.  Obama announced this pick on Friday an hour before the closing bell, and immediately the Dow jumped several hundred points.

Secretary of Defense -- unannounced
Yeah, okay, but seriously, everyone's pretty sure Obama's going to keep Robert Gates, Bush's final defense secretary.  As an Air Force lieutenant in Vietnam, a former CIA director, and of course the sitting secretary of defense, Gates's credentials are impeccable.  What's more, Gates holds a much more cautious and fact-driven view of foreign policy than his current boss, which lines up nicely with Obama's attitude towards security.  By picking Gates Obama will advertise both that he is bipartisan and that any wars from here on out will be based on reality.

Attorney General -- Eric Holder (D-former Deputy Atty Gnl)
The Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice.  Holder has been an attorney, judge, or Justice Department employee for thirty-two years.  A deputy attorney general under Bill Clinton, he'd be the first African-American attorney general.  He has a minor scandal under his belt involving advising Clinton to pardon a Wall Street felon who also happened to be a Democratic contributor -- advice which Clinton took.  Holder might yet not be picked, but Obama has reportedly asked him to take this office pending vetting.

Secretary of Commerce -- Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM)
This appointment may actually come as a disappointment to Governor Richardson, who as a former U.N. ambassador, former Energy Secretary, and prominent Obama supporter, may have been hoping for the Secretary of State gig.  Still, he knows a thing or two about international trade and immigration from his time as governor of New Mexico.  According to a 2006 Forbes article, Albuquerque is the most hospitable city in the U.S. for commerce and business, thanks in no small part to Richardson; he is also very fiscally responsible for a Democrat.  He should be up to the job at Commerce.

Secretary of Health and Human Services -- Former Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD)
Normally a position that doesn't get much press, this year Health and Human Services is sure to be an important post as Obama tries to reform health care.  It's not obvious from his Wikipedia article that Daschle has a lot of experience with health care policy.  He did, however, co-author a book on the subject earlier this year that proposed a new health care agenda more or less compatible with Obama's.  Perhaps more importantly, as a former majority leader in the Senate, he knows a thing or two about coalition building; health care bills are not going to get passed if only Democrats vote for them.

Secretary of Homeland Security -- Governor Janet Napolitano (D-AZ)
Richardson's neighbor to the west, Napolitano is at first glance an odd choice for this post.  Apart from being a five-year governor of Arizona, her previous political experience is not in defense but in justice; she was a U.S. attorney under Clinton and served a term as Arizona's Attorney General shortly thereafter.  Her Homeland Security credentials hinge mostly on her experience navigating immigration policy.  Her record here is not so much "moderate" as "extremist both ways;" she doesn't mind giving driver's licenses and tuition aid to illegal immigrants, but she's happy to harshly punish businesses that hire them.  I don't have a clear bead on her.

There have been a few non-Cabinet appointments reported too; I may do a post on them later on, but right now I have some yummy stir-fry to make. 

Isn't Mr. Google one of his top economic advisors though?

Last edited by Imaginary Bad Bug (11-23-2008 07:26:29 PM)

satyreyes wrote:

Imaginary Bad Bug wrote:

Isn't Mr. Google one of his top economic advisors though?

As far as I know, Eric Schmidt (Google's chairman and CEO) has not yet been given any official position in Obama's administration, though he's been an informal economic advisor of Obama's for a while.  Obama has mentioned that he plans to create a government position of "Chief Technology Officer," and Schmidt would obviously be a terrific candidate for that position.  Technology and economics are linked subjects, so I expect anything Schmidt had to say on the topic of the economy would be taken seriously.

If it helps the cause of Net Neutrality (this election's most overlooked issue - one of them anyway), I'm for it!

Last edited by Imaginary Bad Bug (11-23-2008 08:45:22 PM)

satyreyes wrote:

He also used to be president of Harvard, but had to step down after saying various controversial but provocative things about the sexes and environmentalism that you're not allowed to say when you're president of Harvard.

Oh geez, THAT Summers?

satyreyes wrote:

Stormcrow wrote:

satyreyes wrote:

He also used to be president of Harvard, but had to step down after saying various controversial but provocative things about the sexes and environmentalism that you're not allowed to say when you're president of Harvard.

Oh geez, THAT Summers?

That's the guy   If you ask me, the whole brouhaha that ended with him stepping down was a mountain over a molehill.  He wasn't obviously being sexist, he was being iconoclastic, which I think we should view as a good trait in both a president of Harvard and an economic advisor.  He could have expressed himself more diplomatically, but frankly in an economic chief I want someone who's blunt to a fault.

Didn't he say that women aren't as naturally good at math and science as men?

To me, it is an issue to at least call someone out on because it's operating under an unproven assumption, and in essence saying that it's okay to discriminate against women in science and math career fields because they're not as good at it anyway. Any discussions that presuppose a "biological" basis behind factors rooted in society, such as that women aren't encouraged to be good at logic or that men aren't supposed to show emotion just inhibit the potential for growth in individuals.

So I would rather not have someone like him in a position of power in the U.S. government. He may not have intended to be sexist, but his views are still uninformed, and I like having informed people ruling this country.

As for being iconoclastic, I'm not really aware of the specific circumstances behind that quote. I appreciate bluntness and a willingness to tell the truth and shatter illusions, but I suppose I just don't really see how that ties in with gender stereotypes.

satyreyes wrote:

Like_Autumn wrote:

Didn't he say that women aren't as naturally good at math and science as men?

I'll paraphrase here, but you can find his exact words here.

Basically, Summers was seeking explanations for why there are many more men than women in the upper echelons of science.  He came up with three contributing factors.  In order of importance -- he said -- they are:

1. The "high-powered job hypothesis."  This is the idea that many more women than men who are highly educated and talented nevertheless choose not to pursue demanding jobs.  It's hard to raise a family, or even in some cases have a husband, when your work by its nature has to be your life.  Since more women than men place a high value on family life, many women accept jobs that may not reflect their actual talent, or just become homemakers.  Summers does ask: "Is our society right to expect that level of effort from people who hold the most prominent jobs? Is our society right to have familial arrangements in which women are asked to make that choice and asked more to make that choice than men?"  Regardless of the answer, though, he concludes that this situation is the most important reason why there are more men than women at the highest levels of the scientific establishment.

2. "Different availability of aptitude at the high end."  This is the controversial one.  I want to be very clear on what Summers said here, because almost no one in the media took the time to elucidate it.  He did not say that men on average are better at math and science than women on average.  (If he had said this I still would argue it does not necessarily make him horrible and biased, but he did not say it, so it's immaterial.)  What he suggested, presenting evidence which he acknowledged was imperfect and preliminary, was that the standard deviation of ability is higher in men than in women.  That is, men vary more from the average than women do.  If this is true, then the dumbest men are dumber than the dumbest women, and the smartest men are smarter than the smartest women.

3. Discrimination against women, and differences in socialization that encourage boys to be interested in the sciences and women in the humanities.  Summers acknowledged that these play a role but considered them less important than explanations 1 and 2.

So is Summers a flagrant sexist for saying that men on average differ from the mean more than women in their math and science ability?  I don't think so.  Whether he's right or wrong (and of course I hope he's wrong), the answer isn't obvious.  We should keep an open mind when it comes to questions whose answers aren't obvious, and encourage investigation rather than jump all over whoever asks those questions for being a sexist.  It's not as though Summers just kind of stated as self-evident that men vary more than women; he presented some evidence and approached the question scientifically, or at least as scientifically as you can expect from an economist.  :snerk:  So yeah, I see his willingness to say something like that in front of a conference at Harvard as a sign of bravery and iconoclasm, not sexism.

Ah, I was definitely uninformed about that. I guess maybe that's the reason people reacted so poorly to his proposed nomination, because they didn't hear all the facts either.

Now that I consider all the proposed options he gave, I think he made some valid points. I still disagree about innate ability, but he mentioned social factors as a contributor.

I guess even the feminist sources I like to check for women's issues are fallible to the same lack of fact-checking and sensationalism as any other news source.

Now I feel bad for posting without knowing the real deal. My apologies.

satyreyes wrote:

Like_Autumn wrote:

Now I feel bad for posting without knowing the real deal. My apologies.

That's okay!  I'm happy to help clear up the misunderstanding, and if you still felt like he was a sexist after hearing what happened that would be okay too. 

You know, I just read that transcript of his speech.

It was this part particularly that I noticed:

Q: Secondly, you make a point, which I very much agree with, that this is a wonderful opportunity for other universities to hire women and minorities, and you said you didn't have an example of an instance in which that is being done. The chemistry department at Rutgers is doing that, and they are bragging about it and they are saying, "Any woman who is having problems in her home department, send me your resume." They are now at twenty-five percent women, which is double the national average-among the top fifty universities-so I agree with you on that. I think it is a wonderful opportunity and I hope others follow that example. One thing that I do sort of disagree with is the use of identical twins that have been separated and their environment followed. I think that the environments that a lot of women and minorities experience would not be something that would be-that a twin would be subjected to if the person knows that their environment is being watched. Because a lot of the things that are done to women and minorities are simply illegal, and so they'll never experience that.

LHS: I don't think that. I don't actually think that's the point at all. My point was a very different one. My point was simply that the field of behavioral genetics had a revolution in the last fifteen years, and the principal thrust of that revolution was the discovery that a large number of things that people thought were due to socialization weren't, and were in fact due to more intrinsic human nature, and that set of discoveries, it seemed to me, ought to influence the way one thought about other areas where there was a perception of the importance of socialization. I wasn't at all trying to connect those studies to the particular experiences of women and minorities who were thinking about academic careers.

He also mentions that he believes socialization and discrimination are the least likely contributing factors toward lack of women in math and science fields. It also seems that his reasoning for married women not being as represented in professional fields because of non-married women is because they are expected to fully commit to their job and the choices they make ensure that they can't.

I don't really see it as being that blunt, personally. It's true that he's presenting different reasons, but he also makes judgements on the value of each of those reasons. He says that "little boys and little girls have different interests that can't be attributed to socialization." And "that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination."

So I guess I'm reading into it in a slightly different way than you are, but it does seem that he's at least trying to understand the issue, and doesn't seem to be trying to be sexist. But I still believe that socialization is a major factor in the ways males and females learn their societal roles, so his dismissal of it as a minor factor seems to be a bit strange.

Last edited by Like_Autumn (11-24-2008 06:22:29 PM)

Mmm hmm.  I think if Summers erred, he erred in speaking outside his subject area; he's an economist, not a sociologist.  I'm not qualified to know whether he's right, but neither, I suspect, was he.  I can't help feeling, though, that the fuss over his comments wasn't justified by their content.

I'd honestly be more afraid of running into Rahm Emanuel than Dick Cheney in a dark alley...I feel like I could get away from Dick, and he's never shot anyone in the back... But I think Rahm might rip my eyes out and eat them.

A new Cabinet appointee was announced today!

Secretary of Veterans' Affairs -- Eric Shinseki (four-star general)
Yes, the Department of Veterans' Affairs is Cabinet-level.  It doesn't have quite the punch of "Department of the Treasury," but it's still Cabinet, which makes it a great spot to give to a crony who you want to do a favor for.  Obama could have done that.  Instead he gave it to Shinseki, a Japanese-American general and former Chief of Staff of the United States Army, who will be only the third Asian American ever to serve in the Cabinet.  On one level, Shinseki is a great pick for the job: who better than a (highly decorated) veteran to oversee serving veterans?  On another level, the symbolism of appointing a Japanese American to Veterans' Affairs on Pearl Harbor Day is sort of beautiful and reminds us how far we've come since World War II.  And on yet another level -- well, Shinseki was one of the few generals brave enough to tell Donald Rumsfeld that we would need drastically more troops to win in Iraq than Rumsfeld wanted to commit.  He broke with the administration publically and was eventually fired.  This pick is thus a very visible way for Obama to communicate change in the foreign policy arena.  It's also a toss-out to anime fans:

Speaking of DoD, I work on base at Ft. Bragg, and let me tell you....everyone (well the ones who didn't vote for him) are in complete denial and it's starting to become rather disturbing, still seeing these random Democrats=Communist flyers decorating cubicle walls, Anti-Obama emails explaining how he isn't "American".

Oh yeah, has anyone heard the latest about Mr. Gov who decided to try his hand at "play for pay" politics, he needs to resign immediately and let the Lt. Gov take charge.

Last edited by Pallas Athena (12-10-2008 03:27:43 PM)