Skip to main content

Who was Best and Who was Worst, and why?

Image
By scooby
How would you rate the Secretary of Energy – Who was Best and Who was Worst, and why.

Spencer Abraham January 20, 2001 - January 31, 2005
Samuel Bodman February 1, 2005 - January 20, 2009
Steven Chu January 21, 2009 - Present
Charles Duncan, Jr. August 24, 1979 January 20, 1981
James Edwards January 23, 1981 - November 5, 1982
John Herrington February 7, 1985 - January 20, 1989
Donald Hodel November 5, 1982 - February 7, 1985
Hazel O'Leary January 22, 1993 - January 20, 1997
Federico Peña March 12, 1997 - June 30, 1998
Bill Richardson August 18, 1998 - January 20, 2001
James Schlesinger August 6, 1977 - August 23, 1979
James Watkins March 1, 1989 - January 20, 1993

Comments

Anonymous said…
Schlesinger the smartest and most effective.

Bodman the most destructive, probably on the Kremlin's payroll.

Herrington and O'Leary in a tie for least intelligent.

Richardson, the most decent guy.

Chu, the most disappointing.

Watkins, the most uptight person, reinforces the maxim that retired flag officers are not capable general managers.
1/27/2013 9:18 AM
Anonymous said…
No serious student of the history of the Department should question ranking of Schlesinger as #1. One can have numerous different reasons for that selection, but it gets murky to rank who was worst. Worst may be in the eye of the beholder, and not all eyes will be able to clearly see how much long term impact more recent Secretaries have had.
1/29/2013 2:40 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

LLNL un-diversity

By scooby
Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
79 comments
Read more