• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

No one could have predicted…

The house always wins.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

‘Forty-two’ said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.

I’m only here for the duck photos.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Gastritis broke my calculator.

Consistently wrong since 2002

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

I did not have this on my fuck 2020 bingo card.

Saul Alinsky is my co-pilot.

What fresh hell is this?

I personally stopped the public option…

A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.

This blog goes to 11…

It’s not even safe to go out and pick up 2 days worth of poop anymore.

This blog will pay for itself.

Today in our ongoing national embarrassment…

Something seems odd about that, but i have been drinking.

We have all the best words.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

Historically it is a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

Too inconsequential to be sued

Almost as fun as hiking the Appalachian Trail

Mobile Menu

  • Look Forward & Back
  • Balloon Juice 2021 Pet Calendar
  • Site Feedback
  • All 2020 Fundraising
  • I Voted!
  • Take Action: Things We Can Do
  • Team Claire, and Family
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • BJ PayPal Donations
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Nature & Respite
  • Information As Power
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • On The Road
  • Garden Chats
  • Nature & Respite
  • Look Forward & Back
You are here: Home / Humorous / Impressive

Impressive

by John Cole|  December 8, 20031:04 pm| 17 Comments

This post is in: Humorous

Facebook0Tweet0Email0

Calpundit takes a bill written, passed, and signed during the Clinton administration and manages to turn it into Bush-bashing.

Apparently the name Bush is synonomous with bad, or evil.

*** Update ***

People seem to be missing my point. I think the legislation at hand is a bad idea- any screwing with peer review is not wise, IMHO. What I find amusing is that the only way Kevin and Chris and Mr. Robbins can effectively highlight the pitfalls of the bill is to invoke the evil specter of George W. Bush.

Facebook0Tweet0Email0
Previous Post: « News Flash
Next Post: Gore to Endorse Dean »

Reader Interactions

17Comments

  1. 1.

    hln

    December 8, 2003 at 2:11 pm

    Clinton was the meat of the Bush sandwich? Atkins dieters are all Democrats?

    Oh, I guess that’s out of scope.

    hln

  2. 2.

    Kimmitt

    December 8, 2003 at 2:30 pm

    I feel quite confident that Republican lawmakers, who controlled the House and the Senate at the time, won at least a few legislative victories against Bill Clinton.

  3. 3.

    Kimmitt

    December 8, 2003 at 2:34 pm

    Also, I’m having a hard time finding any mention of President Bush, in particular, in the post. The post excoriates conservative Republicans for a pattern which Drum finds disturbing, offering up (yet another) example of manipulation of the scientific process to obscure results.

  4. 4.

    John Cole

    December 8, 2003 at 2:47 pm

    The whole reason the bill is evil or wrong is this quote:

    “If one excludes scientists supported by the government, including most scientists based at universities, the remaining pool of reviewers will be largely from industry — corporate political supporters of George W. Bush.”

  5. 5.

    scarshapedstar

    December 8, 2003 at 3:00 pm

    Yeah, the nerve of this guy! Of COURSE the Tobacco Institute, for example, will be completely honest in reviewing scientific studies saying that their products kill people! What ulterior motive could they possibly have?

    What’s more impressive is that you turn a perfectly reasonable assessment of the current sordid state of American scientific research into “BUSH-HATING!”

  6. 6.

    John Cole

    December 8, 2003 at 3:04 pm

    For the record- I agree that it is a stupid provision and I am against it. My point was, in order to show that it is wrong, the only way they can effectively communicate this is to invoke the specter of evil Geogre Bush.

  7. 7.

    Kimmitt

    December 8, 2003 at 3:30 pm

    I understand now. I humbly accept your critique; when I see that the President or his Administration does something, my first thought is that it is either incompetent or malicious. I consistently have to police myself, for this is not always the case.

  8. 8.

    JKC

    December 8, 2003 at 4:53 pm

    John-

    I read Kevin’s post as GOP-bashing as opposed to Bush-bashing. And in this case it’s hard to argue that it’s inappropriate or excessively “partisan.”

    I might also point out that significant parts of the GOP still seem to be cowering and/or enraged at the mere mention of the junior Senator from New York, who has been blamed for All Manner Of Evil in this country. It may not be fair, but it’s hard to feel sorry for GWB if he gets tarred for something stupid done by a member of the party he leads.

  9. 9.

    James W

    December 8, 2003 at 4:57 pm

    Your post is off-target, John. You are attempting to impugn Kevin, when on the broader points he’s got it exactly right. The implication of your post is that Kevin is blaming the Bush Administration for something Clinton did. This of course is not true.

    First, to echo Kimmitt’s comment, nowhere does Kevin even mention Bush. In fact, he goes out of his way to point out that this rule was inserted into a bill by

  10. 10.

    John Cole

    December 8, 2003 at 5:12 pm

    Ask yourself this:

    Why does Bush’s name have to be mentioned atall to describe this as a lousy bill? He had nothing to do with it, but in order to show how really bad it is, Robbins writes about how this helps “Bush’s corporate sponsors” and both Chris and Kevin chirpily repeat it.

    I am not way off base, I am merely pointing out how Bush has become synonomous with evil, much like, as JKC has pointed out, Hillary has with some on the right.

  11. 11.

    James W

    December 8, 2003 at 5:25 pm

    If all either of them were doing was criticizing this particular bill, you’d have a point. But they’re not. Their point is to frame this bill in the context of a broader pattern of very real indifference to science by this Administration.

    I’ll grant that to some, simply mentioning ties to Bush or Clinton is enough of an indictment either way. I disagree that that’s what Robbins and Drum and Mooney are doing in this instance. Chris’ post is, after all, about three pages long. It’s not quite fair to reduce that to a “Bush Bad” knee-jerk type argument.

  12. 12.

    John Cole

    December 8, 2003 at 5:30 pm

    And I would argue that Chris’s post is thoroughly persuasive without EVER mentioning Bush. It is, as you noted, three pages long.

  13. 13.

    Pootie Tang

    December 8, 2003 at 9:38 pm

    John

    The bill said that Congress passed said peer review had to be done by independent scientists. It’s the Bush administration (specifically the OMB) that in August 2003 defined independent as meaning non-government funded scientists.

    Why is it inappropriate to blame the Bush administration for its own policies?

  14. 14.

    Pootie Tang

    December 8, 2003 at 9:49 pm

    Aargh

    OK, me grammar be bad, but the point still stands: The Bush administration has changed the definition of the word independent, and that is what this is about.

  15. 15.

    john young

    December 8, 2003 at 11:29 pm

    What Pootie Tang said.

    White House gets points here for being clever. Sure sounds good to require that reviewers be independent. But if independent means non-gov’t, who’s left with any funding? Few. I’d just like confirmation that the language from OMB eliminates researchers with any gov’t funding sources, rather than the particular agency in question. Maybe other agencies wouldn’t have scientists in a relevant field so maybe my question’s rather moot.

    Chris and/or Kevin say the GOP intentionally put the “independent” phrase in the bill (and conservatives commenting on Kevin’s blog say why wasn’t it Clinton’s fault for signing a bill with this provision hidden in it). I gotta decide whether to think the GOP conspired to put this in years ago as a Trojan horse, figuring to complete the deed by redefining “independent.” Why the focus on the bill, not the regulation?

    Too bad this is so obscure and essentially boring. Science as medecine ball.

  16. 16.

    Scoob E

    December 9, 2003 at 2:17 pm

    Have any of you read the actual Bulletin? http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/infopoltech.html#iq As a scientist, it seems perfectly reasonable after you’ve read what it actually says.

    It deals specifically with policy-making from internally generated science/results. The bill is about formalizing the independent peer review of internal research in studies that lead to policy changes, etc.

  17. 17.

    Meban

    February 20, 2004 at 8:28 am

    Innouncement!!!

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Biden-Harris Inauguration

Biden-Harris Inauguration Website

We The People Concert (8 pm 1/17)
Donate $5 to watch

Official events – watch at top link

Major’s Indoguration Party (now)

Do Something!

Call Your Senators & Representatives
Directory of US Senators
Directory of US Representatives
Letter to Elected Officials – Albatrossity
Letter to Elected Officials – Martin

I Got the Shot!

🎈Ways to Support Our Site

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal
Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice ⬇  

Recent Comments

  • Mary G on Incompetence Is Its Own Reward (Jan 19, 2021 @ 1:42pm)
  • Amir Khalid on Incompetence Is Its Own Reward (Jan 19, 2021 @ 1:41pm)
  • cain on Incompetence Is Its Own Reward (Jan 19, 2021 @ 1:41pm)
  • Matt McIrvin on Incompetence Is Its Own Reward (Jan 19, 2021 @ 1:40pm)
  • patroclus on Tuesday Morning Open Thread: Prepping for A Party (Jan 19, 2021 @ 1:39pm)

Team Claire, and Family

Help for David’s Niece Claire
Claire Updates
Claire update for the holidays 12/23

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year

Featuring

John Cole
Silverman on Security
COVID-19 Coronavirus
Medium Cool with BGinCHI
Information Is Power

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Submit Photos to On the Road
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Meetups: Proof of Life
2021 Pets of Balloon Juice Calendar

Culture: Books, Film, TV, Music, Games, Podcasts

Noir: Favorites in Film, Books, TV
Book Recommendations & Indy Recs
Mystery Recommendations
Medium Cool: What If (Books & Films)
Netflix Favorites
Amazon Prime Favorites
Netflix Suggestions in July
Fun Music Thread
Longmire & Netflix Suggestions
Medium Cool: Places!
Medium Cool: Games!
Medium Cool: Watch or Read Again

Twitter

John Cole’s Twitter

[custom-twitter-feeds]

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2021 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!