Search the Lounge


« Ben Carson's New Gig | Main | LeVonda Reed Named Dean of Georgia State Law »

April 28, 2021


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jennifer S Hendricks

This reminds me of so many conversations with government lawyers, not to mention law school faculty and university administrators:

me: "The law/Rule/CFR/whatever says you have to do this."
them: "Oh, no, let me tell you why that's a bad idea."
me: "You made that argument to Congress before they passed the law and to the court in my FOIA suit. They both disagreed with you. You have to do it."
them: "Oh, no, let me tell you why that's a bad idea...."

Jennifer S Hendricks

Also, you've got to love the straight face with which they manufacture their new rationale, which is basically "we can't follow the law because we want confidentiality for the reviewers, which is the opposite of what the law requires."

Jennifer Spotila

@Jennifer Hendricks, you’ve neatly summarized almost every conversation I have had with NIH and with FOIA offices.


Isn't it indeed rich when some folks, who are so meticulous about parsing and adamant about precision in reporting that negatively affects their own interests, engage in nearly exactly the same behavior (spinning up scant or inaccurate evidence to stir hysteria) when, again, it is in their interest?

I have no objection to debunking over the top claims based on scant evidence. When will those who are so demonstrably capable of doing this do so in ALL instances, instead of ignoring the evidence that claims that advance their own interests are subject to the same debunking?

Or, is it that these folks are so perfect that they know that they, and their comrades, are always right?

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad