after the supreme court decision today on the health care bill, my prediction
is we will have much different leadership after the next election.
how much different will largely depend on how much worse the economy gets, what happens with the change of power in egypt, the european economic issue, and how tolerant folks are come november.
my bet is folks patience will have worn very thin, if not completely out by then.
i agree we ought to be funding AE/RE on a national level, however it needs to be monitored and overseen by true experts not only form the specific fields but also other disciplines to provide some clarity.
for example, while it is fine to have wind power experts on a panel, perhaps having a couple of physicists and a couple of wall street bean counters on the panel too? the physicists can provide a sense of reality when it comes to the law's of nature, the accountants can provide some real world economic reality so that everyone knows the true costs at every point in the venture.
i also believe it would not hurt to have a couple of good diy'ers on the panel too! if for no other reason but to provide information back to the public in plain speaking english and not political or economic double speak. further i feel a good diy'er by his very nature is generally a pretty frugal guy capable of critical thought, something lacking in damn near every political appointee, and most everyone else on such panels.
i think study of the business model of entities like the "skunkworks" might shed some light on how to get things done, on time, on budget and that perform at or above expectations.
this idea that we have leaders who make appointments of cronies to positions of leadership of these panels is insane! it rarely if ever works, generally when it does it is not because of the leadership but in spite of it.
i am thinking maybe congress (only because i can think of no other entity to do it) could vet and amass a group of perhaps a half dozen to then be considered by the president for selection of one to lead a panel. congress of course would have to assemble a group to make these selections and those congressman should be somewhat conversant on the subject matter at hand.
we have it backwards now, the president makes his appointment based on the appointee being a contributor or childhood friend or some other cronie, and then the congress has to approve the person based only on the fact they can find nothing wrong with him? "he has no criminal history, therefore he is ok to be czar of the nuclear regulatory commission"
if we look at successful business models, we don't see many that succeed using that logic, most fail if they appoint childhood friends or family to positions of power within the company. the owners might better be served had they allowed someone like their banker, lawyer, pastor vet a few candidates to select one from to fill a key position. sort of like corporate world methodology, wherein the CEO makes his selection from a few candidates put forward by the board of directors.
no i am not saying all corporations are good, there are always exceptions, however
i would stay that corporate america is much more successful at getting things done that political america has ever demonstrated the ability to do. at least more often than not.
just a bit of rambling from my corner as i see it.
bob g
