I prefer military people be in charge. They have lived a more disciplined life, probably seen or learned a lot about the world, etc. And when it comes to the military itself, I want a military or former-military guy at top - just like I want the Surgeon General to be someone with a medical background and the Attorney General to be someone with a legal background.
Kelly (Homeland Security), Flynn (National Security Advisor), Mattis (Defense)…plus Petraeus (rumored). That’s a lot more ex-brass than usual.
Agreed, but I don’t think it’s a bad thing.
Sure, but given how unusually inexperienced a POTUS Trump would be, having lots of ex-brass is a great thing. He needs that expertise and steering/focus.
If JFK had listened to his brass, the US would have launched a pre-emptive strike on the USSR in 1962. Military people have their place. It’s the military.
And now he has picked OK AG Scott Pruitt to head the EPA…probably chosen after he found out that the Eco-Villains from Captain Planet didn’t really exist.
Great; he wants to hire a guy who has a pending lawsuit against the EPA regarding climate change issues to run said agency. No conflict of interest there, I’m sure.
Not much different than Trump appointing members of the National Labor Relations Board.
The same NLRB that ruled against a Trump hotel in a unionization dispute.
No conflict of interest there, either. Nosiree, nothing to see, just avert your eyes as you walk by…
Hey, he’s the Great Negotiator, who has learned his lesson from the Master:
“Do my bidding, and I’ll be able to make your problems go away.” Sounds familiar.
Right, Pruitt has a long history of being allied with the fossil fuel industry and fighting the EPA, especially on climate change mitigation.
Earlier I mistakenly described climate change denier Myron Ebell as being the EPA appointee. In fact, Ebell was appointed to head the EPA transition team, not to the agency itself, although many believed that he’d end up as the administrator (Dick Cheney ran Dubya’s VP search team, and guess who Dick discovered would make the best VP ever?). It’s a moot point whether Ebell or Pruitt is worse, since they’re both clearly anti-science, and if Pruitt was brought in on Ebell’s endorsement, that says a lot about him and the policies he’s likely to follow.
Maybe we need a law that says the person in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency should be someone who actually believes that the environment should be protected.
Sort of “protected”. Packaged, sold, used up and disposed of.
Bagged and tagged?
Rode hard and put away dead.
It’s pining for the fjords…it’s an ex-agency.
If you’re going to propose silly laws like that, you may as well propose one that says that the person in charge of the Department of Education should be someone who actually believes that kids should be educated. You could try, I suppose, but remember that you’re dealing with a Republican-dominated Congress. If you piss them off they’ll just abolish those departments altogether – and they’ll also abolish HHS while you weren’t paying attention – and use the savings to give tax relief to needy coal and oil companies.
I’m curious who Trump will pick for the Department of the Interior. I’m hoping it’ll be someone from one of the states that are dominated by huge federal land-holdings. Somewhere like NV or UT.
Knowing how willing to sabotage the very agency that the EPA appointee will oversee, I expect that for the Department of the Interior one of the Bundys is a contender. 
Sounds delightful.
Do you have a cite for the contention that vouchers will get us closer to a decent education for all?
Because my admittedly quick-and-dirty review shows the jury is still out – the organizations that are pushing private schools find voucher programs very effective while the organizations that support public schools find vouchers in some cases show worse results than public education.
This cite from earlier this year indicates that the voucher program in Louisiana may have done more harm than good: