You can take the boy oout of the Oil-patch....

The BBQ Pit
#1

But you clearly can’t take the Oil-patch outta the boy. Seems that White-house policy-wonk Phillip Cooney, who edited scientific reports on global warming to better suit the administration’s tastes has taken a “long-planned departure” from the White house to work at, where else?..

Exxon.

There are not enough "fuck"s in the English language to fully emphasize my disgust. There is no sigh deep or long enough to express my despair.
Fuck. Just…fuck.
FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK,FUCKITY_FUCK, FUCK!!

to infinity!

#2

Oh dear. Another poster that doesn’t like the Bush administration. Whatever shall they do?

#3

Thanks for the honest and insightful response to the OP.

#4

I felt it was on a par with fuckety-fuckfuckfuck or whatever. YMMV.

#5

Weeeelllll…he WAS a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute (IIRC) after all. Where else would you expect him to go to work for? Shell? Texaco? BP? I mean, his choices were kind of limited. I admit to the irony of his going to Exxon after allegedly tampering with certain reports…but looked at pragmatically it makes a certain sense and has a certain internal logic. No? :stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

#6

No reason why he should even change offices, really. Repaint the sign on the door, bring in the new letterhead, good to go.

#7

Wasn’t he working for Exxon all along anyway?

#8

No, I don’t like the Bush administration. I find it particularly egregious that “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” when it comes to setting scientific policy (not to mention foreign policy). I find it abhorrent that this puke felt it acceptable to put the interests of the oil companies and his cronies before those of the American people, and that he, a former oil lobbyist, had a better grasp of the science than a panel of scientists. And I am disgusted that, rather than being excoriated as an industrial mole, he gets rewarded for it.

You don’t have a problem with this?

#9

Have you had to dodge the stampede of tighty-righties rushing to condemn this? Lying about a war, torture and imprisonment without trial, letting crooks and polluters set energy policy? With the honorable exception of a few like Airman, it’s just business as usual. Move along, nothing to see here folks, just Republicans at work.

Anyway, chill. It’s not like he got a blow-job or anything.

#10

I don’t like many things that go on in Washington. In this case, however, the guy was an oil-man before he entered government service. When he resigns from government service, it’s only natrual that he should return to the oil industry.
Did you expect him to seek employment in hotel management or computer programming?

Lawyers leave private practice to enter govt. service, then when they resign from govt. service they return to the legal profession. Ditto doctors to medicine, scientists to science, on and on. It’s the way things are.

Pit the guy for actions taken while he was working for the administration, if you will, but pitting him for returning to his chosen field after government service simply doesn’t make any sense.

Did you really expect the oil industry to blacklist him for making decisions that favored them?

#11

Invisible Pink Unicorns infest Press Conference. Some can see em, some can’t. Good thing we have Scott to guide us. The country would be lost without him.

#12

Horrible unethical action by a member of the administration which, at best, distorts the truth and at worst puts American lives in danger?
Check.

Apologist checking in, totally missing the issue, and finding no fault with the administration?
Check.

Just another day on the SDMB.

#13

A quibble or two. First, our correspondent from Barsoom, John C., lacks credentials as an Bush apologist. Not that there are none, God knows, but they don’t yell at him to come sit at their lunch table. And “horrible”? C’mon, these are the Bushiviks, they do worse stuff than that before breakfast (scrambled hooping crane eggs, fresh squeezed blood of the working class…)

But isn’t that at least illegal? Altering research conducted on our dime? I mean, I can still hear the high pitched squeels of porcine rage over Filegate, Travelgate, Zerogate and Nadagate…

So, seriously, this ain’t even indictable? Did they cloroform Barney Frank, tie him up and stash him in a broom closet?

#14

Good point luce. I should’ve said “per diem apologist” :smiley:

What can I say, my outrage meter got a bit of a bleed off, and I had a little free space for more outrage. It’s topped off now, so I think I’m back to viewing them as merely habitualy corrupt venal slimelords.

#15

Hey, Barney’s only one man, he can’t do it all himself, ya know.

#16

Did I totally miss the issue? After reading the OP again, it still seems to me that he’s pissed because an oil expert returned to work in the oil industry. If there are codes and buzzwords used in the OP that I’m not aware of because I don’t have a Secret Decoder Ring, please point them out.

Or is blind irrational hatred for one or the other of the major political parties necessary for one to catch all the nuances?

If that’s the case, I’m left out because I don’t hate either party.

#17

Funny… I thought that the issue was

Um… how about the implied buzzwords, like “corrupt” “conflict of interest” “liars” etc… How about someone who put American lives in danger and then got rewarded with a sweet job?

I don’t know exactly why you are trying to hand-wave this away and look at it as, simply, an oil-man returning to the fold. Does the fact that he fucked the American people in favor of big bussiness and then got rewarded not, I dunno, strike you as somewhat not that good?

That or a belief that neither political party should distort science, putting Americans at risk in order to pander to special interest groups. Ya know, whatever floats your boat.

#18

Funny, you thought wrong.

As I posted above: “Pit the guy for actions taken while he was working for the administration, if you will, but pitting him for returning to his chosen field after government service simply doesn’t make any sense.”

The OP pits him for getting a job in the oil industry. Other sins he may have committed are brought up later, by others.

Therefore, the issue in this thread (at least the Op, which is what I responded to,) is the subject’s post-government service position.

#19

Um… you do realize I was quoting the OP?
Although I must admit, it takes some serious balls to claim that the direct quote I’m using is somehow, I don’t know, not a direct quote, not accurate? Ah well. Congrats on your massive testicular endowment.

Again, this is just kinda… surreal.
While working for the administration he lied and distorted data to benefit oil companies. Then he gets employed by an oil company. Why you think that people being upset about that makes no sense is beyond me.

That’s just not true. I quoted the OP already, and you dismissed it. The OP clearly stated that part of the issue was that

Seriously, are you being wilfully ignorant or is this just a bad day for you?

#20

Go read the Op again. Including the part you quoted. Second thought, here, I’ll quote it for you:
“Seems that White-house policy-wonk Phillip Cooney, who edited scientific reports on global warming to better suit the administration’s tastes has taken a “long-planned departure” from the White house to work at, where else?.. Exxon.”

The mention of editing etc., is a way to fully describe the person who has taken the job at Exxon. No details or complaints about his actions are mentioned. See?

If you can’t see that, well, I never!