Comments on: If Only I Had Known

By: FungiFromYuggoth

FungiFromYuggoth — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:30:36 +0000

It’s such a fine line, between stupid and clever.

By: guthrie

guthrie — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:52:33 +0000

WEll, I’m sure glad that I’m going to live for a billion years, and so will have time to swan about on the earth when it has recovered from the damage wrought by us humans.
Seriously Mike, are you being sarcastic or stupid?

By: Michael Z. Williamson

Michael Z. Williamson — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:55:00 +0000

According to real climate scientists (the ones who use a billion year average, not a cherry-picked “1961-1990 is ‘average’” average), we’re currently 7-10C BELOW average.

As with every time this debate arises online, I shall now proceed outside to burn a tire.

Luckily, I’m deployed to a location where burning tires, venting refrigerant to the atmosphere, torching methane from the wells, burning plastic and other activities considered normal and wholesome before America became decadent are not only endorsed, but encouraged.

Think of me as doing my part for the currently dangerously cold global mean.

Ecologically,

Mike

By: Michael Z. Williamson

Michael Z. Williamson — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:49:16 +0000

Putting Obama in office will accomplish something?

Someone’s been drinking Kool Aid.

And while I am deployed to An Undisclosed Location In The Persian Gulf Region, I am still compiling my list for The Chipper. Mrs Scalzi’s nominations are welcome.

http://www.MadMikeIn08.com

VOTE FOR ME!

By: Fletcher

Fletcher — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:13:19 +0000

Now, I can’t quite remember where I read the following – it was on a blog somewhere in the Internet, which is about as accurate as “it was on land, somewhere on the planet Earth” – but it might be germane to the idea of hand-delivering reports to the President;

If I’m remembering it correctly, White House insiders have said that people who tell the President things he doesn’t want to hear don’t work again. That could be entirely incorrect, or biased, or a flat-out lie – but if it’s true (and I don’t have much trouble believing it’s true, but neither do I have trouble believing it’s /un/true) it would explain why people might avoid hand-delivering his mail.

By: Zander

Zander — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:51:20 +0000

Um, hi. I’m here via Making Light’s comment thread on this story, to which I linked in my LiveJournal. Someone on my friends list then commented after this wise:

“That story is tripe. All official EPA business is done in hard copy, with a room full of lawyers, not by email (my sister is an official US Navy liaison to the EPA, she looked at that article and ROFLed).”

I don’t know how true this is, or if it has any bearing, but I thought I might pass it on for what it’s worth.

By: Josh Jasper

Josh Jasper — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:48:36 +0000

This is why I like to focus on objectively awful decisions and events the White House and it’s appointees have made or taken part in. Like the Albania arms trading scandal, ties with Enron, the Veeps denigration of a conservation policy, the fact that a major domestic policy adviser was busted for ripping off a Target store, and blamed his Evil Twin. Real f*ckups. Provable f*ckups. f*ckups with no debate that they were f*ckups.

Conservatives will just keep plugging fingers into the sea wall that is the Bush administration leaking all over everyone’s lives with things like the EPA letter. But there’s just a few holes that no one can deny exists. I expect people to still try, but they look like dolts when doing so unless you’re a total lockstep conservatives-can-do-no-wrong fascist.

Plenty conservatives lauded Ollie North and G. Gordon Liddy. But in doing so, they’re not making the conservative movement look good to outside observers. Both of those people are crooks. Both engaged in the crooked behavior to further the conservative cause.

All people like Frank and Skar end up doing in cases like that is trying out the “tu quoque” arguments to steal focus from the criticism.

By: Tapetum

Tapetum — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:57:11 +0000

You know, Steve? That makes perfect sense. Doesn’t say anything good about the current residents of the White House, but it does make sense.

By: Steve Buchheit

Steve Buchheit — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:01:39 +0000

That should be FOIA request, not FOIFA.

By: Steve Buchheit

Steve Buchheit — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:56:19 +0000

Look, the White House didn’t accept the report because if they had, it would have been an official document subject to a FOIFA request. Then you could compare the two documents (file ignored, subsequently edited and official report) and show exactly where and what was changed at behest of the White House.

By ignoring the report, ignoring it publicly (as in “we never opened it, don’t ask us what was in in”) the White House can exert pressure to change the report language (which was then done) all while being able to deny they forced the change, or that any changes were made.

What this article points out is the mechanism. It’s a procedural report. If you all aren’t used to seeing such reporting, obviously you haven’t been following politics since Nixon lost to JFK when practices and procedures (as in “how they won”) became as important as “issues.” The story here is how the White House gained “plausible deniability” while having the report changed.