White House Clamps Down On USGS Publishing 417
An anonymous reader writes "The White House has begun implementing a new policy toward the U.S. Geological Survey, in which all scientific papers and other public documents by USGS scientists must be screened for content. The USGS communications office must now be 'alerted about information products containing high-visibility topics or topics of a policy-sensitive nature.' Subjects fitting this description might include global warming, or research on the effects of oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve."
I can't wait, (Score:5, Insightful)
Brought to you by... (Score:2, Insightful)
In all seriousness, does this actually surprise anyone?
Or translated into "Reality" instead of "Spin" (Score:5, Insightful)
What is this!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Republican War on Science. (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article: "This is not about stifling or suppressing our science, or politicizing our science in any way,'' Barbara Wainman, the agency's director of communications, said Wednesday. "I don't have approval authority. What it was designed to do is to improve our product flow.''
They aren't even trying to justify their actions anymore. They're just filtering science from public view, and insisting that it is improvement.
Ryan Fenton
Da, tovarisch! (Score:5, Insightful)
Same shit, different century. And it worked out sooo well the last time.
Re:Riiight (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure you can come up with an equally valid reason to have USGS information screened for "politically-sensitive" reasons?
Translation: either they want to be alerted in advance of stuff they can take credit for, or they want to tweak press releases of embarassing info. It's a classic CYA move.
Another right bites the dust (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Riiight (Score:3, Insightful)
Things of a "policy-sensitive nature"? Is this the new codespeak for "think of the terrorists!" or are they actually serious about restricting the flow of information regarding stuff that is not a national security issue?
Until someone says otherwise, it's clear that this is specifically referring to things like global warming, which has always been a "policy-sensitive" issue for Bush.
How To Clamp a President (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop him now. Impeach him now. [wikipedia.org] It's the only way to stop the damage before he starts "upgrading" the impeachment process itself.
Re:Republican War on Science. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nature of Democracy vs Democracy of Nature (Score:5, Insightful)
What part of Democracy does this administration not understand?
It's not that this administration doesn't have a coherent position, it's that that position is nearly impossible to audit because most individuals who might wish to don't command the resources that the government has, and it becomes a war of wills with the money (and hence the odds) stacked against the common citizen.
There are things in the world that require actual secrecy. It's useful to have the codes to launch the missiles be secret. But that doesn't mean it has to be secret that you have nuclear missiles. In fact, it's the kind of thing one might want to know in order to decide if one likes the government that they elect in a supposedly informed way. How can one be informed on a matter without information?
Democracy is a grand experiment. It seems an open question as to whether it works. But weirdly, though Bush and his cohorts speak about bringing Democracy to the world, they don't seem to believe in it. I'd think their position a lot more coherent and believable if they said "We're the party of 'Democracy has failed.'" They could be about political self-determination rather than democracy and they wouldn't sound like hypocrites. They could then say "You, the American people, decided democratically that "you can't handle the truth." [imdb.com]". But I think they worry people might not be able to handle that truth.
And hiding one truth soon begets hiding another, until soon it seems like it should be S.O.P. [wikipedia.org], where we just don't let the people have access to any facts, not even political facts, because they might misinterpret them.
And that's like a cancer. Because every fact you withhold becomes political by virtue of withholding it. So it feeds itself.
The whole reason science uses something called "peer review" and not just "review" is to distinguish it from other kind of "review". Like, say, "government review". Blurring the two is to give take meaning from the word "peer". Which sounds quite a peery-loss endeavor to me.
Now that is really annoying. (Score:3, Insightful)
I am outraged! (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't handle the truth!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah. They have to be sure that the public isn't unneccessarily exposed to things like "facts". What kind of "communication strategies" need to be developed to communicate a new finding? What's wrong with just reporting the science? I guess that some facts have too much "truthiness" behind them:
In 2002, the USGS was forced to reverse course after warning that oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would harm the Porcupine caribou herd. One week later a new report followed, this time saying the caribou would not be affected.
Damn facts... always getting in the way of MONEY.
Fascism (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientific facts don't stop being scientific facts, just because the administration demonstrates the political need to ignore/bend/distort and supress such facts. Thus, the scientific governmental organization founded for the good of society is overruled by the good of the current administration of the state. That is a fascist method of operation.
My dream is that both republicans and democrats will condemn these attempts. My sense of reality says that will never happen.
Re:What is this!? (Score:1, Insightful)
It Goes Against the Word of God (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Another right bites the dust (Score:5, Insightful)
I finally realized how bad things were going to get when I first started hearing people advance the argument that it was unconstitutional and - worse! - unpatriotic to limit their democratic "right" to vote away my freedoms. Here's a hint, America: if someone is pissed about "judicial activism" it usually means they are trying to take away a minority's right to not be punished for being a minority (and I don't mean this in the strictly racial sense). Cover your ass or you know what you get...
Re:It may be.... (Score:5, Insightful)
For what you ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
Geeze, it's so hard to choose. For starters, how about picking on a few of his more egregious violations of the law:
And those of you who've been paying attention will realize that we're just scratching the surface here. These are only a few of the more obvious crimes for which there is publicly available evidence, despite complete lack of congressional oversight for the last six years.
If the Dems have any balls at all we should be swimming in viable charges by this time next year.
--MarkusQ
Re:Another right bites the dust (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Brought to you by... (Score:4, Insightful)
No. And that's the scary part. About 15 years ago we used to laugh at "government conspiracy" theorists and call them crackpots. Now I am not so sure anymore. Perhaps they were just foresighted.
Re:Another right bites the dust (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you noticed that there are no longer any classes in things like "citizenship" or "social studies" or anything to do with participating in government? We aren't told the basic truths such as the REAL power of the jury which is to determine if a law itself is bad and get rid of it.
For example, if someone were to be prosecuted under the DMCA and the defendant wanted a trial by jury and the jury decided the DMCA wasn't good law, something could actually be done!
Re:I can't wait, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I can't wait, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Republican War on Science. (Score:2, Insightful)
I hereby pledge never to vote Republican again.
Thomas
I'm surprised so many people defend the USGS... (Score:5, Insightful)
In case people don't remember, the USGS was the same agency that in 1998-2000 (under the clinton administration oversight) was accused of falsifying many research documents in support of the proposed nuclear waste processing facility in Yucca Mountain. I believe some of their scientists that were involved with this research falsification are under federal investigation for this today.
I'm not saying all of their scientists are bad apples (they do some good research there), but the agency as a whole untainted as unbiased scientific researchers (as they know who butters their bread) and all the stuff that comes out of the door there should be taken with a grain of salt.
In response to this and other problems, in 2004 (under the bush2 administration oversite), the USGS started a procedure of external peer review for their papers. This new "alert" of course goes beyond external peer review, so isn't all that great news, but I think the USGS has a long way to go to clean up their act before they cry idea censorship.
Just my 2-cents worth...
Re:Another right bites the dust (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if I'd go that far. Yes, many are taken in by the Machiavelli/Goebbel PR spin machine. But, I fear, many more just aren't bothered to give a shit. You see, our "leaders" have learned that when the people are starving don't say "Let them eat cake". Instead, join forces with corporations and placate them with McDonalds hamburgers and DVD's to take their minds off the fact that they will never have a slice of the pie.
Re:Riiight (Score:4, Insightful)
You work for the company. It owes you your salary, but not much more.
The government is supposed to represent you. It is, by definition, public. It is accountable to you. It shouldn't keep (too many...) secrets.
Re:Riiight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Riiight (Score:1, Insightful)
Look at it this way: if you work for a company, your boss pays you for your time and tells you what to do with it.
Now, who is paying for the USGS to do this research, and who should have the right to decide what to do with it?
Democracy doesn't work (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I can't wait, (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the conditions of impeachment [wikipedia.org] is that the President (or Vice President) has to commit "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Clinton commited perjury in a federal court, which is a federal felony. Bush has not commited a similar level crime. Prewar lying about US intelligence on Iraqi WMD, even if it can be proven to have occured, might not be illegal. Especially since Bush didn't claim much himself. And since many of the US allies and independent countries like Russia and China needed a pretext (even if they knew it to be false) before they'd approve an invasion of Iraq, it could be argued that the US did this merely to gain their support and for that reason did not commit an activity which merited impeachment.
I doubt that the Democrats could get the Republicans to go with anything stronger than a verbal reprimand in the absence of truly reprehensible, well-documented actions in the White House.I told you so.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd seen too many guys who lucked into a position way over their head not to recognize the type. When confronted with unpleasant truths, ignore them. Operate in an alternative world where everything is wonderful, and any subordinates thinking unhappy thoughts get wished out under the cornfield.
Re:I'm surprised so many people defend the USGS... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which was almost certainly political interference with science, which is exactly what people are opposing here and now.
Re:How To Clamp a President (Score:2, Insightful)
What was impeaching Clinton supposed to do? Stop him getting blowjobs? Stop him lying about cheating on his wife? Maybe it worked. Who cares?
What it really was supposed to do was to combat Clinton's popularity. Which would have helped Gore follow him as president. Gore won the election, despite Clinton's temporarily dented popularity, and the Gore campaign's unwillingness to use Clinton to campaign in the shadow of the impeachment which hadn't targeted Gore (of course, for every reason).
And tie up Clinton with BS so he couldn't proceed on his agenda, which was working with a very effective overall national growth. So Clinton's last couple of years were thwarted. Which, if you look at the 12 years of Republican Congress, especially the past 6 years of total Republican Federal control, is their entire agenda: thwart Clinton, roll back the clock, do nothing, break stuff. destroy the government that we use to protect ourselves from corporate anarchy and other foreign/domestic enemies.
And "besides" that, there's the issue of justice. Bush is a criminal president. Presidents are Constitutionally immune to prosecution until they're out of office, if ever, except for the alternate procedure, impeachment, with its own justice rules that accommodate the unique political status of the accused. I thought impeachment was all BS, but at least they were going to try a president on the principle of lying to Congress, even about a trivial, personal fact. If we don't impeach Bush for his many actual heinous crimes, then we're never going to impeach a president to pursue justice. We might as well stop pretending we believe in justice, and just erect temples to gods of power and wealth.
Re:I can't wait, (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you really arguing that the latter is impeachable but not the former?
Re:How To Clamp a President (Score:3, Insightful)
You Bush worshippers had the balls to say "get over it" when you stole the 2000 election - ignoring the majority of voters who chose Gore. Then every time Bush's catastrophes burst out of their bubble into reality, you said "now's not the time to play the blame game". Now it's "old news". You sick criminals have had your day: thousands of them.
You hate the Constitution, but its rules for impeachment when reelection isn't in the works still rule the land - despite the dismantling and contempt your boy Bush has wreaked on it this whole decade.
Most Americans want Bush impeached. And when his Republican Congress is finally flushed all the way down the toilet after last month's elections finally install a Democratic Congress in January, the coverups will slow to a crawl, and the terrible truth about Bush's crimes will finally start to get something like their true reporting. He'll be lucky he doesn't get lynched by an angry mob. Impeachment is a civilized mercy. The kind that real "Compassionate Conservatives" extend to even a lying deathmonger like Bush. The kind of civilization you'll never understand, in your deluded Bush worship.
Re:I can't wait, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:who needs science? (Score:3, Insightful)
The one article doesnt cover it all. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It may be.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The US is showing you amateurs how to do censorship correctly.
First you subvert the population, then you censor. None of this "revolution by force", "censorship by edict", oh no. The correct way to do it is get the population on board with a completely bogus set of threats and rationalizations they think are their own -- "terrorism", "homeland" security, "for the children" -- then the population's own representatives willingly subvert the country's founding documents and the people like it.
Everywhere I look, I see sheep.
Re:I can't wait, (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush swore to uphold the constitution in his oath of office. If blatantly violating the constitution by intentionally subverting Habeas Corpus isn't a gross breach of his oath of office, I'd be mightily surprised. That alone is sufficient reason to impeach. To which you can add torture, wiretapping, imprisonment w/o trial or representation, and more. If the oath of office is meaningless, and Bush can lie to us with impunity, and laws don't apply to him, then we don't have a president. We have a dictator. I submit to you that in that case, we're in a lot deeper trouble than we think.
Re:I can't wait, (Score:2, Insightful)
The difficulty is not that he got some. After all, that is a personal issue (no pun) between himself and his family.
The difficulty is that he wasn't completely honest about it, likely due to marital woes. There was quite a bit to do about dodging that issue, in public no less. Some amount of that mey be unavoidable when one is a public figure.
IMHO, GWB is far worse because his actions have affected millions of peoples lives, and not always for the better when you consider dishonesty at its core like that. I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative and vote accordingly; and I will tell you that the Bush dynasty is no conservative. They (pols) all have had the same stripe since Carter and Reagan's first term -- and yes, I voted those also.
As for scienctific results becoming politicized, they know where their bread is buttered. The major things in the USA are funded by the public to a greater or lesser extent, and the public itself may not be properly represented in that way. Like the patent office, there needs to be reform; perhaps there is an alternative way to fund research?
Re:I can't wait, (Score:2, Insightful)
That attitude really annoys me. It flies in the face of reality.
President Bush (current) hasn't made mistakes; he knows exactly what he's doing. He's not stupid. He _IS_, though, an ideologist who is working in-line with his ideology.
He absolutely hasn't (in his mind) made any serious mistakes even if the world disagrees, his supporters only gripe about the details _not_ the goals or even the general way how the goals are being strived for.
He's been highly effective in getting his policy decisions passed. Even Katrina and Iraq have been policy and long-term successes. This is not "doing a job badly" at all...even if you disagree with everything -- how, why, when, and the cost -- of the policy.
Stop giving him credit for not knowing what's going on. He's no puppet, he's the president and is leading exactly where he thinks the country should go.
That he's wrong is an opinion that I enthusiastically support. That he's incompetent, dumb, ... doesn't fit how effective he's been even if he is doing massive damage in the process of making his ideology become reality.
Re:Another right bites the dust (Score:3, Insightful)
The President is the CEO, not the Emperor. If the CEO tells the accountants to lie about the financial status of the company, he is not only going to be in trouble with the Board, he is probably going to go to jail. Similarly, if the CEO tells the company scientists to lie about the efficacy of a drug or the safety of an automobile, he is going to be in similar trouble. The President does ultimately ADMINISTER the executive branch, but that doesn't make its members his personal servants. They do not work for the President - they work for the People. He does not have the right to control the conclusions of professional scientists, even if they work for the government.
Re:I'm surprised so many people defend the USGS... (Score:4, Insightful)
We torture people? Ah, it must be election season, or you wouldn't bring that up. Saddam had no WMD? Ah, political pandering again from the liberals. Bush's policies make terrorism worse? Ah, more partisanship. Someone in the administration outed a CIA agent for political reasons? Ah, the liberals are playing politics again. We were lied to about the threat posed by Iraq to justify an invasion, and now we're mired in an open-ended, pointless war? My, the liberals hate Bush, don't they? That's all we freaking hear from the right wing. They never address anything--just accuse the speaker of partisanship. A senator is found to be a pedophile and would-be sexual predator? Oh, you're politicking again.
Occasionally I get lucky and someone says this crap to my face, so I get to say "but is what I'm saying factually incorrect?" If you make people stay on the subject rather than going off on a tangent about whether or not an unbiased, completely objective person exists anywhere on the planet, things get a bit more interesting. Usually I just get resentful silence because they don't want to actually answer the question, but at least the smug "I'm not going to openly disagree with you, but what matters here is that you hate the president, so let's talk about that" crap gets stifled for a few seconds.
Civics 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
You are woefully uninformed (despite your absolutely ridiculous "informative" moderation), not to mention completely wrong. I say this because:
Bush and crew lied about the reasons for attacking Iraq. [cnn.com] Iraq had no WMD. Iraq was not threatening us or our interests. Iraq was not threatening an ally or an ally's interests, someone with whom we had treaty obligations to defend. In fact, subsequent to the first gulf war, Iraq was not threatening anyone or their interests. Not even tiny little Kuwait. All of Iraq's pitiful military actions were confined to within its own borders. Therefore, in fact, there was no reason for the USA to attack them. But it isn't this simple, is it? No. Because in order to generate popular support for his attack on Iraq, Bush and his crew lied to the public. They claimed that aluminum tubes were being imported to centrifuge nuclear materials. Yet no such thing was occurring; the only tubes being imported were not of the type that could be used in that application, which was a known fact at the time. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld specifically claimed they knew where the WMD were. And were they there? No. The administration repeatedly and specifically claimed that Iraq's administration had direct and unequivocal ties to Al-Quida. And has that been found to be so? No.
Now, let me remind you of the federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."
This is the basis for both calling these acts a foundation for impeachment, and for calling the war itself illegal. It does not, unfortunately, address the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in pursuit of this illegitimate war; nor the loss of Iraqi lives; nor the loss of US soldier's lives, and the lives of those soldiers from other countries who ill-advisedly entered into combat with the US in this criminal action.
Yes, telecomm law. That's the specific set of laws that says that no one, including the government, may tap a US citizen's phone call, no matter who they are talking to, without a warrant. but Bush and crew did that. There is a another set of laws that sets up the FISA court, which says that taps may be made if permission is gotten from FISA within a certain number of hours after the tap; but Bush and crew did not do that. This leaves absolutely no door open to make tapping a US citizen's phone call legal. The bottom line is that yes indeed, Bush and his crew broke the law in this regard.
I mean the company that gets all the major contracts in Iraq. All of them.
In order to suspend any part of the constitution, you have to modify the constitution. Otherwise it will be (and always has been) found to be illegal. Bush has not modified the constitution; ergo, he violates it. The constitution, which you so blithely dismiss (as does Bush) is the single operating legal document that authorizes our government. It is the framework that describes not only how it functions, but what the specific limits of its operations is. If the government operates outside the constitution, it is completely illegitimate in its actions. That is why in the president's oath of office, this phrase has primacy: "I promise to preserve, defend and uphold the Constitution."