Sections
Recent Posts
- Sunday March 15th
- So Much For The Post-Partisan Era (8 comments)
- Saturday March 14th
- Heartbeat Away, Folks (1 comments)
- The Incredible Shrinking President (2 comments)
- The Quasi-Cuban/Venezuelan Airbase Crisis (1 comments)
- Suddenly, We Have Nothing To Fear But Fear Itself (1 comments)
- And The Scales Fall From The Eyes Of The American Progress (1 comments)
- If You Are Wondering Where The Content From The Past Week Went . . . (0 comments)
- Friday March 13th
- Wow (2 comments)
- Quote Of The Day (0 comments)
- Yet Another Treasury Department Nominee Withdraws . . . (0 comments)
- Older Stories...
Blogroll
- Armavirumque--The New Criterion's Blog
- Stephen Bainbridge
- The Becker-Posner Blog
- Tim Blair
- Stuart Buck
- The City That Eats
- The Corner
- Daniel Drezner
- Jessica Doyle: The Author of Much
- Hit and Run
- How Appealing
- InstaPundit
- Legal Theory Blog
- Libertarian Samizdata
- Lileks
- Marginal Revolution
- The New Ledger
- OxBlog
- Virginia Postrel
- Power Line
- Protein Wisdom
- The Protocols of the Yuppies of Zion
- Red State
- ScrappleFace
- Adam Smith Institute
- Terry Teachout
- Two Blowhards
- VodkaPundit
- The Volokh Conspiracy
- Armed And Dangerous
- The Belgravia Dispatch
- Class Maledictorian
- Hugh Hewitt
- Iowahawk
- Just One Minute
- KausFiles
- Little Green Footballs
- Damian Penny
- Real Clear Politics--Blog Page
- Joshua Trevino
- Michael Totten
- Dr. Weevil
- Winds of Change
"Reality-Based" Obamaian Science Advice
Posted by Pejman Yousefzadeh on Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 12:24:12 AM EST
Yeah, right. Isn't a fuss supposed to be made when the incoming White House Science Adviser has a history of getting so much so embarrassingly wrong? Any chance that an enterprising journalist might ask John Holdren just what in his background and track record of predictions, arguments and hypotheses should justify the nation's trust in him as Barack Obama's Science Guy? I mean, we know that the media would be making a big deal about the White House Science Adviser getting schooled on a regular basis by his critics if the Science Adviser in question worked/works for George W. Bush. There is no reason why standards should be different here.
Julian Simon's ghost would make a better White House Science Adviser than would John Holdren. It's high time more people made that point. The incoming Administration should get no plaudits whatsoever for this appointment. Quite the contrary; John Holdren's views and record should be laughed out the court of respectable public opinion.
(Thanks to David Boaz--who gives us more things to worry about--for the link.)
| < Policy Alternatives To Keynesianism We Are Apparently Not Allowed To Talk About | Scorecards > |
"Reality-Based" Obamaian Science Advice | 0 comments ( topical, 0 hidden)
Search
Donate
