Journal twitter's Journal: McCain would hire Steve Ballmer to US Cabinet if Elected. 431
Astute blogger and part time programmer RMS found an interesting summary of John McCain's technical blunders from May 30th. While most people jumped all over McCain's wrong headed view of the network neutrality issue, few noticed his infuriating love for Microsoft.
In another move that was sure to infuriate many geeks, the 70 year old presidential hopeful also said that he would ask Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to serve on his cabinet to deal with technology issues if elected. He did not however say what position Ballmer might be hired in, but did joke that he might consider him for a diplomatic position...
Now there's a knowing wink that backfired and a widening generation gap.
Oh God (Score:5, Funny)
But the comedy almost writes itself.
Imagine Ballmer jumping around and screaming at cabinet meetings.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh God (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh God (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Oh God (Score:5, Interesting)
An excerpt:
And something more current regarding Halliburton's current relationship with Iran. [washingtonpost.com]Re:Oh God (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh God (Score:4, Funny)
I say Ballmer for President! No I'm kidding. We don't need him to say "Fucking Putin is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Russia."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh God (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh God (Score:4, Funny)
Wow, I didn't know all that about Steve Ballmer! I suppose chair-throwing can be a martial art and given that he has threatened to fucking kill Google, I'm not surprised.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
or maybe
"Lobyists, lobyists, lobyists"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Lies, not Truth, Appeal to the American Voter (Score:4, Insightful)
Among the Republican candidates, both John McCain and Ron Paul are the least dishonest candidates -- even if you disagree with their political positions. McCain is honest in saying that a substantial increase in troops in Iraq can transform the country. He is correct. Increasing the number of Western occupying soldiers to 400,000, pushing aside the Iraqi government, and running Iraq as a colony on the basis of Western values (e.g., equality for women) will transform Iraq into a prosperous, liberal Western nation. At the end of 20 years of occupation, we can relinquish control to democratically elected Iraqi politicians who spent most of their youth in a Western-value-dominated colony.
At the same time, Ron Paul is correct when he says that American foreign policy (like deposing the democratically elected government of Iran in the 1950s) is, at least partially, responsible for Arab attacks (like the 9/11 incident) against American citizens.
Note that neither men can win this election. American voters do not want to hear truth. Neoconservative voters especially do not want to hear the truth. They wanted war on the cheap and cheered using a pathetic force of 160,000 soldiers to occupy Iraq. Of course, these voters refuse to support making sacrifices for the war; their attitude is, "You make all the sacrifies for the war. You die for the war. As for me, I make no sacrifices. I will not support even a tax increase to pay for this war. Excuse me! I must hop in my SUV and head off to the baseball game!"
When Ron Paul told the truth during the recent debate, the Republican voters booed and condemned him. They do not want to hear about American responsibility for the 9/11 incident. In the debate, Ruddy Giuliani viciously attacked Paul and his utterance of the truth. Few politicians are as dishonest as Giuliani, so he has the best chance of being nominated as the Republican candidate. The American voter prefers hearing lies.
On the Democratic side, the least dishonest politicians are Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, and Barack Obama.
Okay. Clinton has a good chance of being president. However, she keeps saying the truth. She refuses to apologize for her vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Although we now know that the CIA intelligence data was wrong, supporting the use of force was appropriate since, in 2003, we believed that the intelligence data was correct. If a nation with a leader making violent threats does have weapons of mass destruction, authorizing the use of military force against this nation is appropriate -- maybe, even, desirable. Clinton voted correctly. She correctly refuses to apologize for the vote.
However, if she keeps sticking to the truth, she will ruin her chances to win in the election. The dumb American voter does not want to hear the truth. So, henceforth, Clinton should avoid talking about her vote on the use of force -- if she wants to win. She must focus on flashy superficialities -- just like Giuliani.
Of course, Fred Thompson has an excellent chance to win. Nothing is more superficial and flashy than an actor.
Re:Lies, not Truth, Appeal to the American Voter (Score:4, Insightful)
But it also requires skills that highly technical people usually lack. Engineers and developers often take a myopic view of technology that is often far too black-and-white to be useful in a public policy setting. As much as I hate to say it, lawyers, economists and other non-technical disciplines tend to have skills that transfer over better than strictly-tech people.
If I were looking at creating a cabinet position to advise on technical issues, I'd look more towards people like Lawrence Lessig...the kind of person who has clearly been able to draw on the knowledge of people who deeply understand technology and then apply what they've learned to real-world considerations. Someone who understands the intricacies of what public policy is allowed to and is likely to be able to accomplish.
Re:Lies, not Truth, Appeal to the American Voter (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, it only takes 400,000 soldiers to move Iraq West? How many dump trucks does it take?
Re:Lies, not Truth, Appeal to the American Voter (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lies, not Truth, Appeal to the American Voter (Score:4, Interesting)
If Balmer wanted to be a politician he could run for President himself, he is a vastly more credible candidate than the rest of the Republican field to date.
Romney is running against the state he was governor of, openly attacking liberals for holding the views he claimed to hold five years ago, another flip flopper.
Worst flip flopper of all is Giuliani, he was for terrorism before he was against it. Back when he was running for Major of NYC it was convenient to pander to the expat Irish vote by supporting the IRA. So Giuliani was a regular fixture at Sinn Fein and Noraid fund raisers. In 1994 he gave a 'humanitarian award', the Crystal Apple to Gerry Adams, who blew up a shopping mall 18 months later.
Thompson is busy hiring staff embroilled in the worst Bush administration scandals. And Ron Paul will have been drowned in the slime generated by the administration noise machine long before the primaries.
What is particularly disgusting about this crew is the snearing contempt they have for anyone who does not share their exact views. There were plenty of people who understood what the Iraq war was almost certain to become, it was not even a close call if you knew the history of the British occupation. Put one of those people in charge, not the blind sheep.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh so its not a coincidence that his views on this issue just happened to change after ceasing to run for office in a liberal state and instead running for national office?
If Romney had told voters of Massachusetts what he is currently saying about Massachusetts he would never have been elected Governor. Strange place for someone who says he hates libera
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lies, not Truth, Appeal to the American Voter (Score:5, Informative)
Hong Kong. South Africa. Philippines. Canada, technically.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hong Kong. South Africa. Philippines. Canada, technically.
Hong Kong is rich and peaceful, but has no democracy. The Philippines is dirt poor and its politics is corrupt, violent and inefficient. I know less about South Africa, but it doesn't have a shining reputation. Canada "liberated"? It was granted independence in a completely peaceful and orderly process. No shock and awe requi
Re:Lies, not Truth, Appeal to the American Voter (Score:5, Funny)
Actually they withheld cream and sugar when having the British Ambassador over for tea. He was both shocked and awed at the impropriety of it all. No amount of stammering, "Now listen here, old chap, this simply will not do," could conjure up the required accompaniments, and he was forced to telegraph home immediately recommending that such dastardly manners be answered with expulsion from The Empire.
The rest of the world was like, "What the Fuck? Canada just got its independence now? That's stupid, why'd they bother after waiting so fucking long?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF?! "We" knew the intelligence data was bullshit back in 2003 too -- the UN inspectors said so! Only the goverment thought it was correct, mostly because it was Hell-bent on going to war and needed an excuse.
Re:Lies, not Truth, Appeal to the American Voter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What are you smoking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a professional political candidate (which is all elected officials are these days) is not unlike being an actor. It's even more superficial and flashy than acting, except you never admit it's fake. Come to think of it, no wonder Jesse Ventura was so qualified.
Somewhat True (Score:3, Insightful)
The first co
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ignoring that you're just a flaming troll, it's important to consider THAT YOU'RE WRONG.
Thompson spent 8 years as a Senator. 1994 to 2002. Obama was elected in Illinois in 1996, and has held elected office contiguously since then. That's 8 years for Thompson, 11 for Obama. And, for what it's worth, 7 for Clinton.
Sorry. Try Again.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Propped up Saddam when he fought Iran, bombed "economic targets" in Iraq, Abu Garib, Haditha, disbanded their military, and created instability leading to a civil war and the deaths of more than 600,000 Iraqis. As a percentage of population, that's about the same as 7 million Americans dying for someone else's arrogance and incompetence.
Has the Islamic world ever been firebombed, or nuked, or
Re:Now, REALLY wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Where was the civil war in Germany after World War II? Where was the civil war in Japan after World War II? It didn't happen.
The circumstances are completely different. In Iraq you have three very different groups of people in one country where the minority government was just overthrown by outside forces. I knew that was going to be a recipe for disaster before we even invaded. A lot of people knew this outcome was likely.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ambassador to Vietnam (Score:2, Funny)
"Infuriating love" (Score:4, Insightful)
clueless infatuation, convicted monopolist (Score:5, Insightful)
So a presidential hopeful wants somebody who at least knows how technology works to be a technology adviser? Say it ain't so!
If "knifing the baby", "cutting off oxygen" and "fucking killing" is how technology works, McCain has his man. Ballmer knows NOTHING about technology and needs the kind of business ethics class that comes with steel bars on the door.
I hope the whole thing was a bad joke, but there is no mistaking McCain's stance on network neutrality. Love of M$ goes hand in hand with approval of ATT's tactics.
Re:clueless infatuation, convicted monopolist (Score:5, Funny)
Ballmer needs to be in a Zoo? But won't he scare the (other) monkeys?
erris == twitter (Score:5, Informative)
I think /.'ers need to see these stories, but kdawson needs to get a better source.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For politicians of course the political party is different as political parties represent like minded individuals working together to
I think you missed it... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not trollish conjecture, the anti-trust lawsuits didn't come out of thin air, and the anti-cooperation charge should require no explanation.
Allow me to also note the increasing movement among U.S. State governments to pursue open standards technology. You want to talk friction? What sort of leverage would MS have on this issue? They already threatened contract-infringement legal action against the state of California just because the state considered having an official conversation about open standards.
Regards.
AND McCain's cluelessness on software patents (Score:5, Informative)
Software as an issue. (Score:4, Insightful)
Software patents are not on any candidate's radar this election cycle. There is the war, there is health care. A hundred other issues that draw more passion then anything the geek can offer.
IT is one of the most stressful things people have to deal with [slashdot.org]. Computers are part of everyone's daily lives and the suck of non free software is too. A politician that does not realize this is out of touch. One that can't harness it is not a leader.
How can I convince you that software patents are important? Easy, it's your freedom, wellbeing and prosperity. The war is important. Declining standards of living is important and healthcare is part of that. Computers touch on these and all 100 of your other issues, but the bigger connector is run away corporate power and greed [essential.org]. Your computer needs to be free if you are ever to learn the truth about wars, healthcare and standards of living. Without a free press to inform you of your leader's dirty work, you will continually suffer unjust laws, wars and declining standards of living.
Laws like the DMCA and other crazy copyright attacks are both a symptom and a cause of corporate power. They are a symptom because free people would never knowingly vote their rights away. People voted that way because they were lied to. They were told that copyright and patent laws were "enablers." We understand the lie because our computers and the internet are a relatively free place. They are a cause because they can be used to take your freedoms away, which will leave you ignorant. Make no mistake you can worse off even than people before the internet if the internet is made non free. Before the internet, people had printed newspapers but you will only have broadcast and non free internet.
Re: (Score:2)
How about:
Congress Critters, Congress Critters, Congress Critters...
or
Ambassadors, Ambassadors, Ambassadors...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So a presidential hopeful wants somebody who at least knows how technology works to be a technology adviser?
We're talking about Steve Ballmer. He understands how technology works the same way a chef understands bovine psychology.
For the last six years we've had the problem dictating the solution. John McCain has just gone on record promising to continue that tradition. It's obvious who he's trying to appeal to and it's not you and I.
Not Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, it's got to be mostly a symbolic move to lure some business/tech folks. I think McCain is probably just throwing a name out there, and that Ballmer would be a poor choice due to his personality and the small fact that he already has, you know, a pretty full-time job. But if McCain's announcement gets voters and candidates thinking that yes, tech policy actually does matter, that's a very good thing.
Re:Not Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about Cheney and Halliburton, but this time for I.T. instead of good ol' military contracts.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
BTW, Mod the article down, McCain [allthingsd.com] didn't say anything like that. He laughed at the suggestion of Secretary of State!
His position would be obvious (Score:3, Funny)
It's an accident waiting to happen. Literally. (Score:5, Funny)
I can just see the official state banquet (Score:4, Funny)
throws chopsticks
SOY SAUCE! SOY SAUCE! SOY SAUCE!
But a sad Joke (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:But a sad Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, he was crooked a long time ago. Google the "Keating Five" to see the sorts of people McCain has chosen to associate with over the years.
I do not understand the appeal of this simpering asstard to voters with otherwise-enlightened sensibilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Because all of our choices seem to be worse than usual this time around?
Re:But a sad Joke (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple: many people have decided that he can't be as bad as Bush (generally ignoring his voting record) solely because he lacks any obvious mental defects, and at least has some personal knowledge of why torture's a stupid method of intelligence gathering.
When you lower the bar enough, anyone can reach it.
Indeed, a bought man (Score:2)
Mike Gravel or Ron Paul. They might be older, but Washington needs adult supervision.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, he has a point with Iraq, but have you seen the rest of his agenda? He wants to go back to a gold standard for gods sake! Having it right on one issue doesn't make you a good president...
His comments on the "inflation tax" and abolition of income taxes are just plain ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
2) During a recession, you cannot use a monetary tool to reboost the economy. This eans that when reession hits, it hits (much) harder.
3) It is supposed to bring stable prices, but gold (or silver) is far from being a stable commodity, prices fluctuate, hence a completely exte
Re:Indeed, a bought man (Score:5, Interesting)
And deflation is bad because?
Deflation increases the value of money. That can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on who you are. For wages, deflation increases unemployment, because the real price of labor goes up. The same is true in reverse, inflation increases employment because real wages go down. However, from an economic point of view, nothing has changed. Increased employment through inflation is essentially reducing the wages of those who are employed and giving it in form of new jobs to the unemployed.
Another claimed "negative" side of deflation is that if you have borrowed money, the real amount you end up paying grows as the value of money increases. With inflation your debt decreases the more inflation eats the value of money. Obviously this causes problems in a central bank-run monetary system. Which however isn't an argument for paper money, but is an argument for letting the market decide what the rate is. In periods of great inflation, this would cause high interest rates, and in periods of deflation, the interest rate would be zero, and in some cases negative.
Oh my. The awful price revolution, where prices increased sixfold in a period of 150 years. This is obviously why paper money is superior to a gold standard!
Do you know how much a 1966 dollar is worth today? 6 dollars. That is the same sixfold increase in prices, in a period of 40 years, and that's for a relatively strong fiat currency . To make an apples to apples comparison, we need to compare the price revolution to a similar case of extreme growth of money supply. A good example would be Germany, from the year 1914-1924. During this time period, the prices in German papiermark [wikipedia.org] grew an incredible one trillion times!
Compared to the horrors of paper money, a gold standard is rock solid. Such stability would increase the predictability of the economy, and would benefit almost everyone. There is one huge problem with moving to a gold standard however. Losing the power to inflate, means that the US government would have to pay for military expenses through taxation, instead of just borrowing money from the Chinese and inflating the debt away. If the people actually saw in their taxation how much it all costs, the empire would dissolve overnight.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Screw McCain... (Score:2)
I hate them both (Score:2, Interesting)
But...
There are NO candidates that I like. I also see no value in voting for the lesser of two evils since I hate them both equally (there is no lesser) and such a vote is pointless anyway (who you vote for is still evil).
With options like these, voting is not an effective means of bringing about positive change.
Once we get rid of this completely wrong-headed "one-person-one-vote" nonsense and also start allowing a wider range of options (tw
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
There were more than two presidential candidates on the 2004 ballot. I had a wide range of evil from which to choose!
Re:I hate them both (Score:5, Funny)
Why vote for the lesser of two evils. Write-in Cthulhu in 2008!
Ballmer = autocrat (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I guess that means... (Score:3, Funny)
Well, that just shows... (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, if McCain is looking for someone to help build monopolies illegally and then illegally leverage those monopolies, then Ballmer's the dude.
Of course, this is all a moot point... (Score:2)
McCain won't win the Republican primary. He's too soft on the vital topics of torture [youtube.com] and deporting Mexicans [ontheissues.org] to rally the ever-important base, so I'm sorry to say that I don't think we'll ever have the joy of seeing Ballmer throwing a chair at Wan Gang. [wikipedia.org]
Unless, of course, somebody gets busy in GIMP.
Ballmer was overheard saying... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Conflict of Interest (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You can imagine the sort of things Ballmer would do for the government. Mandate Windows in education and local government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheney/Halliburton... Monsanto Brass/FDA (revolving door)... Energy lobbyists/DIO appointments(the forced resignatin of Bush's first appointee didn't stop him doing the same thing a second time, currently under investigation for misconduct a second time)... the list goes on.
Regards.
Re:Conflict of Interest (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't they do that already?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It'd be a little bit like asking the CEO of an oil company to determine environmental policy.
Wait. I'm confused. Isn't that what we have now? If it works for energy policy, it would work just as well for IT, right?
Seriously, how is this a surprise? McCain, Clinton, Guliani, any number of other bodies up on those debate stages - none of them have their own views, none of them are competent to lead a country, all obey special interests without understanding the repercussions, all are thoroughly opportunist, and all have little if any understanding of the real intricacies and problems to be addressed
His Position (Score:2, Funny)
McCain doesn't have a chance anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
Supporting the unpopular Iraq War (Score:5, Insightful)
McCain is a veteran and a P.O.W. who experienced torture first hand.
From his perspective: If you're going to commit to a war, commit to it.
He's admittedly avoiding questions about whether we should have gone in the first place (realities being what they are, there's absolutely no way he could get the republican nomination if he went that far against the republican president.
Still, accepting that it has happened, there are basically three choices: get the hell out and deal with the fallout (becoming the more popular view), stay with your head burried in the sand (the administration policy for the last 4 years), stay and do what needs doing to do it right (McCain's choice). That's pretty common amongst Vietnam vets who are largely convinced Vietnam was winnable had the politicians not hamstrung them at every turn.
The interesting thing about McCain is his ethics on how you go about winning that war. Month on month, the war in Iraq has become more of a failure and more insurgents are turning up. Surely if you kill or capture the numbers the U.S. do, that number should go down? No, you piss away all credibility by torturing people, you piss off far more people who would never otherwise have been insurgents - torturing and abandonning ethics recruits for the other guy far better than anything he could do. As a P.O.W. who was tortured, McCain's been vocal that it's never justified (sure, you might prevent an attack that kills 5,000 now but you radicalize enough people to kill 50,000 over time).
Personally, I think the war in Iraq was an horrific lie fed to the American people - Bin Laden never had real ties, Saddam never had real ties to 911, they never tried to buy yellowcake uranium and the chemical weapons that we sold to them were destroyed after the first gulf war. I think the current method of occupation is a great way to make the situation in the middle east worse and kill a lot of young Americans along with thousands of Iraqi civilians. I also think that getting out [sensibly] is the right thing to do...
So, I'd prefer a democrat that gets us out of the war entirely. Still, if I have to have a republican that keeps us there, let's get one with an actual clue about how to do something positive.
What cabinet position?? (Score:2)
Exactly which cabinet position is that, anyway? There is the general pool of advisors of this and that but the president's cabinet is a specific set of high level advisors and I can't think of which one might be in charge of tech issues. Is he thinking of making some new cabinet position for technology issues?
Translation (Score:3, Interesting)
He's a good choice. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ballmer has a track record of taking a large, powerful empire and gradually frittering away its goodwill, resources, and internal cohesion by his aggressive posturing, constant confrontation, and wilful ignorance of what made it great in the first place.
The question is, how has he *avoided* becoming a member of the Republican administration for so long?
Disclaimer: I couldn't care less about US party politics, but the parallel is actually striking enough to mention.
Meta-Disclaimer: I am aware of the locution 'could care less' and I consider it WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! *throws chair*
Would Ballmer even be interested? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians, politicians, politicians, politicians (Score:2, Funny)
McCain's Bad Taste (Score:2, Informative)
Very few Americans seem to realize that the terrorists in Northern Ireland were not bombed out of existence by the RUC and British Government, but that an American called George Mitchell brought the different parties together [mit.edu] and negotiated a power-sharing
Re:McCain's Bad Taste (Score:5, Interesting)
By the way, I thought it was kinda funny.
Yeah, send Ballmer to China (Score:2)
Naaah...what am I thinking? Not while Bill still runs the show. He'd find some other nitwit he can control.
Like McCain has a snowball's chance in hell of being President anyway. First of all, he's lost it and is totally out of touch with reality, as his "Baghdad stroll" comments proved to everyone (of course, Bush is totally lost in a dream world as well and he IS President). Second, he's got all the charisma of a thug (well, actually, so does Bush). Th
Criminals? (Score:4, Interesting)
In a country where convicted criminals can lose the right to vote, you can also go to the White House for being one? That's not really something that can be explained in english without getting into some kind of semantic Moebius loop, can it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is Ballmer a convict or is it Microsoft? He is the CEO of a company that is constantly involved in lawsuits, but can you name one large company that isn't? And does that make the CEO a criminal? Regardless of what you may think of him, he is one of the world's most powerful voices in the world of technology, so I am sure his word counts.
And while we're at it, don't forget to criticize George W Bush for using the constitu
Re:Criminals? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is Ballmer a convict or is it Microsoft? He is the CEO of a company that is constantly involved in lawsuits, but can you name one large company that isn't? And does that make the CEO a criminal? Regardless of what you may think of him, he is one of the world's most powerful voices in the world of technology, so I am sure his word counts.
And while we're at it, don't forget to criticize George W Bush for using the constitution as toilet paper.
Ballmer is the head of a company that is violating US law. He is not trying to fix this. Rather he seems quite content with the current situation. Microsoft continues to force its way into new markets by abusing its monopoly power, and tightening its grips on its existing markets. They seem to be ignoring the very weak settlement of their antitrust suit, but by putting a pretty face on, no one seems to notice! Ballmer undoubtedly has a hand in this, he is a criminal and an enemy to the free (as in capitalism) market.
Ballmer may be well known, but he should be thrown into a pool of sharks, not into a government office.
Both sides of the fence (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft doesn't care who is in power. They just like power.
Re:Both sides of the fence (Score:4, Informative)
The new McCain cabinet: (Score:5, Funny)
Department of Defense: André Maginot
Department of Energy: Kenneth Lay
Department of Homeland Security: Osama bin Laden
Department of Education: Terri Schiavo
Department of Labor: Beevis
Department of State: Butthead
Department of Commerce: Karl Marx
Department of State: Groucho Marx
Department of the Treasury: Jesse James
Department of Agriculture: William R. Simonson
Department of the Interior: George Custer
Office of National Drug Control Policy: Timothy Leary
Environmental Protection Agency: Joseph Hazelwood
Department of Transportation: Joseph Hazelwood
Office of Management and Budget: Paris Hilton
Department of Housing & Urban Development: John Spartan
United States Trade Representative: John Rambo
Oh yeah, and...
Department of Justice: Alberto Gonzales
-
Cabinet? (Score:3, Funny)
Ahhh, good ol' times (Score:3)
Not to point out the obvious here, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Conflict of Interest? (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought it would be an utterly obvious case of No, he can't help formulate technology policy for the government because, obviously, he's a bit biased towards one particular company.
Steve "Monkeyboy" Ballmer (Score:4, Funny)
Oh well (Score:3, Funny)
not a bad choice (Score:3, Insightful)