I might as well own up right away that the headline is a bit misleading, as only one of these stories involves Exxon. Well, someone has to be in Exxon's pocket. The Koch brothers surely can't squeeze in everybody. Then again, the Kochs and Exxon are part of the same oil oligopoly and between them do much to keep global warming denying funded, and the subject of the second story is infamous for Koch-pocket inhabiting, so please undulge some stretching in an effort at cleverness. Anyway,
New Jersey governor Chris Christie let Exxon pay $250 milion after suing for $8.9 billion in damages.
I can appreciate why, when it comes to the Christie administration, the assorted controversies can be tough to keep track of, but this story is raising questions that deserve answers.
A judge was poised to rule on damages, and New Jersey was seeking $8.9 billion – $2.6 billion to help restore the damaged areas and $6.3 billion in compensatory damages. The fact that Exxon was responsible was not even at issue anymore.
And then the Christie administration decides it’ll settle for $250 million, most of which the governor can now apply to his state budget shortfall – rather than, say, environmental recovery.
Essentially, with the lawsuit successfully fought to the point where culpability was established and they were down to the money, Christie suddenly decided his state could give up billions to the benefit of Exxon, which made roughly $32 billion in net profit last year, while his state government, like pretty much all states run by Republicans, is short of cash. I guess if the Kochs have given their affections elsewhere, Christie needs to find a sugar daddy where he can.
The aforementioned Koch-pocket inhabitant is Scott Walker, who doesn't think you need people with Ph.Ds to understand foreign policy. Not when all you need is a little undefined "leadership". Steve Benen puts it well:
This year, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) isn't yet offering similar punch-lines, but he is keeping the anti-intellectual strain alive.
Walker responded by ticking through his recent itinerary of face time with foreign policy luminaries: a breakfast with Henry Kissinger, a huddle with George P. Shultz and tutorials at the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution.
But then Walker suggested that didn’t much matter. “I think foreign policy is something that’s not just about having a PhD or talking to PhD’s,” he said. “It’s about leadership.”
I don’t much care that Walker dropped out of college and never got a degree. I do care, however, about him dismissing those with doctorates, as if vague platitudes about “leadership” are a meaningful substitute for actual expertise.
America has, of course, had plenty of great presidents who lacked post-graduate degrees, but note Walker’s specific claim: a president even “talking to” those with a PhD, he said, isn't especially important.
“It’s about leadership”? That’s fine, I suppose, but leadership based on what? If an inexperienced leader with limited policy expertise is faced with an international crisis, maybe he or she would benefit from a discussion or two with folks who’ve studied foreign policy for much of their adult lives?
The substitute would be an overconfident president who believes his “gut” is determinative. I think we know how well this turned out the last time the country tried this route.
I too don't care that Walker didn't finish college, nor do I care if any particular experts have Ph.Ds. It's the expertise and the willingness to learn about a situation before making decisions that matters. When it comes to the virtue of blowing off expertise in favor of trusting your uninformed gut, I wish conservatives would figure out that Stephen Colbert was kidding.
Yes I know, I missed commenting on Walker's flap over comparing ISIL to workers who protested when he stripped them of their right to organize. The news cycles go by very fast. So remember, and maybe add to, the hashtag #ThisGuyWantsToBePresident
cross-posted at MN Progressive Project