Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Just when I feel better, he suggests Wolfowitz for World Bank president.

I was pleased to see that same-sex marriage bans were named unconstitutional in California. And I was even more pleased to see an editorial in the NYT today saying what I've been saying all along- that the "Activist Judge" soundbite is quickly losing all meaning as a phrase, since the Constitution grants rights to the minority whether the majority likes it or not (could it not be said that the real "radicals" are the ones who wish to go back in time to a homo-free era?). I particularly liked this quote:

No matter how much opponents of same-sex marriage will try to say otherwise, Judge Kramer is not a radical liberal judge, wired on lattes in Haight-Ashbury. He's just now catching up to what the mayor and city council and state legislature - and courts from sea to shining sea - have known for years: that all Americans are entitled to equal treatment. Is that news?


Might be for some people, but not for me.

And then there's this:



World Bank choice Wolfowitz magnet for criticism
Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:04 PM ET
By Charles Aldinger
WASHINGTON, March 16 (Reuters) - Paul Wolfowitz, chosen by President George W. Bush to head the World Bank, is a prominent administration conservative with broad experience in world affairs who has generated controversy as a leading Pentagon architect of the Iraq War.

Wolfowitz, 61, has served as deputy secretary of defense since 2001 and is an expert on East Asia and the Middle East. He was previously U.S. ambassador to Indonesia and served in the administration of Bush's father during the 1991 Gulf War.


Does Bush just have a dartboard of his associates and when an open appointment comes up, he just tosses one out and pick whoever it lands on? Or maybe Wolfowitz was just the closest to Wolfensohn in pronunciation and Bush thought it would lead to less confusion?

Picking Wolfowitz for World Bank president is like picking Paris Hilton as president of the FAA. There is no logical basis for this decision, but like so many other of his decisions he is guided by the forces of his administration, not by the forces of logic or reason. I don't know who thinks this is a good idea, but all Bush has to say is basically "whatever happens happens" and damn the consequences.

Hopefully this, like the Social Security reform debacle, will dissolve like so much tainted kool-aid in the coming weeks. But if anyone is taking Bush seriously on this, something needs to be done.

3 comments:

  1. the u.s. has a bit of history in selecting/appointing repugnant world bank heads: former kennedy-johnson sec of defense robert mcnamara served as world bannk president for something like 20 years, and was instrumental in cementing the idea of the green revolution in asian countries.

    though i doubt mcnamara slicked his hair down with his own spit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. the u.s. has a bit of history in selecting/appointing repugnant world bank heads: former kennedy-johnson sec of defense robert mcnamara served as world bannk president for something like 20 years, and was instrumental in cementing the idea of the green revolution in asian countries.

    though i doubt mcnamara slicked his hair down with his own spit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. According to "Dubya" Wolfie was ambassador to Indonesia, which was a developing country and he now works for a big organization, DoD, so he more than qualified to lead a big organization that is concerned with development.

    I was in the Air Force and stationed in several developing countries. Who knew I was qualified to head the World Bank? I'll have to update my resume.

    ReplyDelete