There was an interesting news story released today that the Palestinians chose a new cabinet for their government. Of the 24 new cabinet members, almost half have PhD's and a number have masters degrees. All of the people were chosen for their expertise in the fields in which they will advise. Few were politicians of any sort, and 17 were complete newcomers. The big news is that, "The method [of choosing the cabinet] stood in stark contrast to the formation of Cabinets in the Arafat era, when he would choose the ministers based on loyalty."
(See the AP article, identically reported on FoxNews.com or if you don't want to be deluged with pop-ups, CNN.com.)
I want you to notice that this article is on both mainstream news sites. The quote above indicates very promising signs of progress in the Middle East. In fact, (and I'm no lover of things Arab, believe me!) this is significantly better than the way our current cabinet was composed. President Bush chose his cabinet almost solely based on loyalty and virtually not at all on subject matter expertise. Yes, most or all of his cabinet are well-educated, bright people. But is his Health & Human Services Secretary a doctor? Was his Education Secretary a teacher? Granted, his Attorney General is actually a lawyer, but it turns out that so was almost every other cabinet member. What they all have in common is long ties to President Bush and the inability to say "no". Where's Colin Powell? Where are the people who dared to have a differing position? What does it say about our president that the Palestinian cabinet is more advanced and independent than the American cabinet?
4 comments:
I'm not going to respond to your unfounded insults of Bush's cabinet, except to say thjat Colin Powell said before he joined the cabinet that he was only in for one term. The man is old and wants to retire. There was nothing political about it. If he was younger, he'd have stayed on with Bush. It's so typical of you Bush haters to twist everything into anti-Bush rhetoric.
I applaud the Palestinian cabinet, I guess. Of course it doesn't mean much since legally there is no such thing as the country of Palestine, and there never has been. I really don't consider the fact that the cabinet is not full of mass murderers to be a huge step, but it's something, I guess.
It's so like you Bush-lovers to twist everything anyone else says to make it sound political. For people who profess to hate relativistic morality, you sure seem to love twisting objective criticism to seem like biased opinion.
I'm confused, Scott. How can talk about Bush's cabinet and the Palestinians be anything but political?
Sorry for not spoon-feeding you here. The definition of political that I was referring to was "Having or influenced by partisan interests." So let me rephrase so you won't be confused.
"It's so like you Bush-lovers to twist everything anyone else says to make it sound as if it had or was influenced by partisan interests." The rest of the comment stands.
Post a Comment