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)
Who the heck is (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I can't wait, (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The new element is that the Speaker of the House would become president.
Re:I can't wait, (Score:5, Informative)
How about...
Re:I can't wait, (Score:4, Interesting)
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law [...] shall not be questioned."
Bush repeatedly referred to the US Treasury Bonds in which Social Security is invested as IOUs of questionable value back when he was trying to dismantle Social Security. One might argue that this section of the 14th Amendment, which largely deals with Civil War issues, is probably one that needs a little re-interpretation. But presumably Republicans would be against such "activist" meddling.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When the mandataed spending by Agency S reaches the point that income no longer exceeds expenses(which they're predicting will happen in a few years), it's going to want to start cashing in those bonds. Which Agency A will have to cough up, but remember, it
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."
Re:Civics 101 (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly my point. The administration assured us they did know; they lied.
Let me actually finish that sentence for you: "Iraq regularly fired upon US aircraft flying in their airspace." And let me also point out that if Iraqi aircraft were flying in our airspace, we'd be firing on them, as well. Not just the government, but every mother's son with a rifle, a rocket kit, or a potato gun. We'd be focusing lasers on their cockpits, running into them with our civilian aircraft, using our jumbo jets to crack them up using wake turbulence. We'd foul up the GPS data, unlink the old school LF navigation systems, and we'd shoot at them from kites, mountaintops, balloons and church steeples. And we'd be right to do it — every one of us. And why, again, is it that you are so offended that they shot at our aircraft flying in their airspace?
You mean like when Bush tried to kill Saddam in the very first bombing of the war? When we sneakily dropped all manner of high powered weapons on a major city in Iraq using aircraft that were invisible to Iraqi defenses? Without having been provoked? Without truth in representing the supposed threat? Is it OK for the Iraqis to bomb us, since we do have WMDs, and have used them to far greater effect than Saddam and crew ever did? Where does our "right" to bomb the Iraqis come from here? Where does our "right" to attempt to assassinate Saddam come from? Do we assign to Iraq an equivalent right to attempt to assassinate our president, then? Where does our right to invade Iraq come from? Where does our "right" to stay, when they clearly want us to leave, come from?
If Iraq or some other actor does something terrible, does that give us the "right" to do something terrible? Or should we stand our ground on higher principles? If we don't, why do we have them at all, eh? We had the choice of many, many actions post assassination attempt and post 9/11. The fact that we chose an entirely unjustified war from all those options is nothing to be proud of. And in fact, I am not.
Ah. So, Israel cannot respond to this alleged threat? We have to bomb the country back into the stone age because Israel is what, unwilling to cross borders? I don't think you can make the case. Israel has shown more than a token willingness to deal directly and militarily with any threats to them. Just ask the Lebanese, the Palestinians, or that motley group of fools who took the hostages in Entebbe. I fail to see how, despite any treaty obligations we have with Israel, this called us into action in any legitimate manner. If Israel had wanted Saddam's hindquarters, they would have had them, I believe. We never needed to act in the first place, post the first gulf war.
You mistake me. I am not anti-war. War is a problem solving tool that at times, is quite appropriate. It is just that this "war" is not. This war is stupid, was based entirely on lies, has generated entirely useless and troublesome results, is extremely costly, and shows no particular benefits. We are not going to "get democracy" in Iraq, we are not going to control the oil, we are not going to save any of the various sects of Islamists, we are not going to get any of the lost lives back, we are not going to stop losing lives there — there is literally no point in being there. At all. I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-stupid, which makes me pretty much anti-Bush by definition.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (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 n
Re:I can't wait, (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you really arguing that the latter is impeachable but not the former?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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:4, Informative)
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
Lincoln, I think, is covered. Bush, not so much.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Clinton commited perjury in a federal court, which is a federal felony.
No, Clinton did not lie to a federal grand jury. In pre-testimony documents, he was given a definition for 'sex' which did not include 'blow job', and correctly stated on the stand that he did not have sex. However most people include a 'blow job' as sex, so when he repeated his assertion on TV, he was wrong to do so, but certainly not under oath. It is true that they not yet caught Bush or any of his Administration lying under oath, as they have never testified under oath, the Republican congress has n
Nuts! Damn you Google! (Score:2)
That's what I get for doing a Google search on my best guess, I ended up getting someone else's mispelling. However, I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi [house.gov] has seen many misspellings of her name.
Brought to you by... (Score:2, Insightful)
In all seriousness, does this actually surprise anyone?
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:Brought to you by... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the vast majority of them are funny, but the one that says 'the Republican Party will attempt to control science to meet political needs' deserves a prize. How about a 'Medal of Freedom', I hear they are going pretty cheap [washingtonpost.com] these days [medaloffreedom.com].
Message to all scientists: (Score:2)
Or translated into "Reality" instead of "Spin" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or translated into "Reality" instead of "Spin" (Score:5, Informative)
"Who is Mark Myers? That's what many US geologists are asking in the wake of an announcement that President George W. Bush will nominate Myers to head the US Geological Survey (USGS).
Re: (Score:2)
Mike Myers is the head of the USGS? Smashing, baby! That's so unbelievably shagadelic...uhh, ohhh MARK Myers...oops.
What is this!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The USGS, the FCC, the DOE, and countless other government "agencies" derive their power directly from the president. If he tells them they need to wear only bright purple clothing every Thursday, they'd damned well better do so.
Now, I will agree 100% with those suggesting the purely political motives behind this decree. But at least on this one, the asshat-in-chief does have the authority (if not the intellect or scientific understanding) to si
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta clamp down on that truth stuff (Score:3, Funny)
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
Re:Republican War on Science. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish they would start with the chocolate. Considering the size of the average american waist, rationing chocolate would be an improvement, probably save billions in health-care costs.
chocolate (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish they would start with the chocolate. Considering the size of the average american waist, rationing chocolate would be an improvement, probably save billions in health-care costs.
Ah but dark chocolate is good for the heart [forbes.com]. It also contains antioxidants which may help fight cancer. you've gotta love chocolate.
FalconRe: (Score:3)
I think, rather, that it's the infusion of the incredible amount of high fructose corn syrup and MSG in the food system of Americans. MSG makes things taste good that probably otherwise wouldn't - and is believed to suppress apetite signals. HFCS as a sweetener delivers tons of calories but doesn't interact with the apetite signalling systems the same way that gluc
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I hereby pledge never to vote Republican again.
Thomas
who needs science? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Da, tovarisch! (Score:5, Insightful)
Same shit, different century. And it worked out sooo well the last time.
Another right bites the dust (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you come over here and scream with us? You no longer have to worry about being invaded and you sure don't have to worry about being deported.
Re: (Score:2)
We watch TV. We pay our bills. We often work more than one job. We vote on American Idol and watch "reality TV." We have been conditioned to think in terms of 30-minute episodes (including entertaining commercial messages).
WE ARE BRAIN-DEAD. That's just one step beyond brain-washed and not nearly as reversible.
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: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:Another right bites the dust (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
All too true. And the thing is is judges and prosecutors screen juries to get rid of those who believe in Jury Nullification [greenmac.com].
FalconRe: (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
Re:Another right bites the dust (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
As for civil liberties? Both sides of popular American politics are a threat to my civil rights.
Re:Another right bites the dust (Score:5, Interesting)
2) When they do vote it is often meaningless due to gerrymandered districts. If you're a Brit the analogy would be the 'rotten burroughs' of the 18th and 19th century in Britian.
3) When congress does pass laws against a president's wishes he simply issues a signing statement saying he will not enforce them. This is blatent nonfeasence, something that should get the pres. removed from office. But niether the courts or the congress have the backbone to challenge him on it.
4) The courts are being packed with activist judges who toe the right wing agenda. Judge Alito on the Supreme Court for example is a huge suppporter of the concept of the 'unitary executive'. Meaning the president gets to do whatever the president pleases.
All this points to a drift toward right wing authoritarian rule. The president as emporer or god-king. Lately I read some posts on the net about the only solution to this being to amend the constitution to dissolve the executive branch, go toward a bi-cameral parlimentary system. I am starting to agree with that POV.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First, as the head of the Executive Branch of the government, the President has the power and the right to oversee the functioning of all departments of government. In a sense the President is the Chief Executive Officer of the United States Government. So there are no rights being trampled on here--no free speech implications--any more than if the CEO of your company asked for review of all published papers. Nothing is preventing the researchers at the USGS from taking jobs at a variety of oth
Re: (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 f
Rock and a hard place (Score:2, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
I mean, didn't Clinton get impeached? It didn't seem to have any effect on him, did it?
(BTW, I'm a Canadian, and I don't have an in-depth understanding of the U.S. political system.)
Re:How To Clamp a President (Score:5, Funny)
I'm pretty sure he stopped getting blowjobs for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the sense of the word "impeachment" usually implied is removal from office, not some intermediate step. In that case, Clinton didn't get impeached.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
That objection held more water before we learned that the WH selectively presented intelligence, cherry picked and edited things to support their position,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You Bush worshippers had the balls to say "get over it" when you stole the 2000 election - ignoring the majority of vot
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)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I am outraged! (Score:3, Insightful)
So much for transparency, (Score:2)
I used to love going to the official MS terraserver site and seeing a big black blob over the PAVE PAWS defense radar installation on Cape Cod.
I guess MS thought they needed to do the gummint's bidding and protect us from seeing a classified thing.
Then you moused over to jef poskanzer's acme mapper and get everything in it's full glory anyway.
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I didn't realize that "reporting the science" involved calling news conferences with CNN, CBS, et al. I guess scientific findings aren't useful without sound bites, drama, and pundits. Wow, how could the American public possibly make informed decisions without media frenzy?
Then obviously, you seem to have missed out on how our society now functions. In the absence of true transparency, what you call "drama" is the best alternative. And most of the "media frenzy" you seem to be worried about is reserved for missing white girls and celebrities adopting brown kids in the third world.
Anyone that requires a broad media-driven audience for their scientific findings is not a scientist. Period. They might be a drama queen, but that's a separate discussion.
See my above response about drama
Additionally, why should the policy makers have to be surprised by media hounding prompted unelected and unconfirmed employees of the federal government?
Because the policy makers are not qualified scientifically to make some of the decisions they make and those "unelected and uncofirmed" employees are. They are "co
Bush is not the first to do it (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in Brasil we have a joke about Bush and Lula that goes along the line that both of them don't know English (well, Lula also is not very good with portuguese, our official language). It seems to me, that being authoritarian is another common trace between the presidents of the US and Brasil.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
My dream is that the American public wakes up so that we don't have to wait for Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dumb to do anything. With the two parties in control there is no real competition in politics and it's killing us from all sides.
Don't think that either the Democrats or Republicans have the market cornered on common sense. They'll both prove you dead wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
What the USGS has to say about this: (Score:4, Informative)
"Recent news reports suggesting the Bush administration is trying to muzzle scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) by placing new controls on approval and release of research plans and products are off base and misinformed about the intent of the changes being formalized at the agency. Speaking as the senior biologist at the USGS, I am deeply concerned that longstanding legitimate scientific peer review processes that have been the basis of scientific practices at the USGS and other scientific agencies and organizations have been mischaracterized as inappropriate political controls on research. Peer review is the bedrock of processes in any credible science organization that ensures scientific conclusions or findings are robust, independent and objective.
The USGS has had such processes in place for many years. As with any science enterprise, policies are periodically reviewed and updated to keep pace with changes in the organization. Our recently revised policy is an effort to do just that and has been developed by scientists and science managers (not political appointees) in an effort to coordinate existing review processes.
Research supervisors in the review chain are simply charged with ensuring all USGS information products have addressed peer comments and are in compliance with USGS procedures with regard to the review and release of scientific information. Furthermore, the notion that senior leadership in an organization should not be alerted to significant findings that will directly impact policy development and decision-making is disturbing. Under current policy this information is transferred to policy makers as it is released to the public.
Characterizing these reviews as an attempt by the Bush administration to control and censor scientific findings is inaccurate, is a disservice to those scientists who developed those processes in the spirit of continually improving our commitment to excellent science and undermines the bedrock of the peer review process as an arbiter of the credibility of individual science products and facilitator of science progress and discussion."
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which was almost certainly political interference with science, which is exactly what people are opposing here and now.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is strong suspicion that it is common that congressional members (under "suggestions" from people lobbying congress) direct research in government labs in order to provide fodder for their political arguments by convincing scientist of compatible political pursuation to initiate specific directly research with an agenda whi
The dilemma of government research (Score:5, Interesting)
Having works reviewed by my agency (NASA) is always interesting. In academia, there is usually very little interference from the parent university (one of the basic tenets of tenure). The researchers opinion is never considered that of the university proper.
It doesn't work that way in government, the distinction between the researcher and the parent agency doesn't exist (although if it did we would probably get better research). A paper put out by a government lab is sometimes construed as government policy, with the ensuing political or legal fallout.
The last thing any senior administrator wants to deal with is a call from legislative affairs complaining about the conclusion of what was seemingly an obscure paper, or the lawyers from a company that was badmouthed in an environmental paper. I don't think these rules are active efforts to stifle information, it's simply folks trying to keep their agencies below the political radar (or by extension, department managers trying to keep their name from being attached to some problem that is showing up at agency headquarters). It's a shame really, but it's the way the world works.
Government employees are in an odd gray area - if you worked for a private company, you most definitely would not have a "right" to expressing your opinion in a company paper - they are paying you, and would fire you. Government employees have a bit more freedom, and their management struggles to define what opinions do and do not belong in government works.
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.
Waxman is about to take on Bush in this area (Score:4, Informative)
The Bush administration's secrecy mania is about to run into Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). He's the ranking minority member of the House Government Reform Committee. On January 20th, he will become chairman. And he will then have subpoena power over the Executive Branch.
This is the congressman who published "Bush Administration's 237 Misleading Statements on Iraq" [house.gov]. He is totally fed up with the lying and secrecy. Expect to see many officials of the Bush administration being questioned by Waxman's commiteee on TV. Under penalty of perjury.
Remember when all the cigarette company CEOs had to testify under oath about what they knew and when they knew it about addiction and hazards? That was Waxman.
And climate is on his agenda. He's very interested in things like the Clean Air Act; he represents Los Angeles.
The one article doesnt cover it all. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
It may be.... (Score:3, Informative)
It may be that the government doesn't want to be caught unaware when the
Re:It may be.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At least in the SSSR you had some kind of social justice...
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:It may be.... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you're wrong (sort of).
My mom, Ethel McIntosh, worked as the Executive Assistant [druglibrary.org] to Chairman Raymond P. Shafer on the 1972 National Commission on Marihuana[sic] and Drug Abuse (sometimes called the "Shafer Commission").
Their report, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding [druglibrary.org], which was QUITE well researched, concluded that MARIJUANA SHOULD BE DECRIMINALIZED.
Without going into all the fascinating details about how Nixon wouldn't let them present the Report to him in the Oval Office (as is the norm for these types of Commissions), but rather made them go to some little hotel on the other side of town to "present" it to an AIDE (thus GUARANTEEING zero Press coverage!), suffice it to say that this report p.o.'ed President Nixon SO badly that he BURIED the report. Which is why you could make your statement with a clear, but ill-informed, conscience.
BTW, I do agree that this report WAS buried for no good reason, and that the 'War On Drugs', just like every other 'War on [x]', is little more than an excuse for Gummint to encroach further and further upon our liberty as Amurikans.
Although I have not personally read this book (but I will now), apparently, the rejection and burial of the "Shafer Commission" report has been very well researched and documented in this book, Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure [knoxandbaum.com], by Dan Baum.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Riiight (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientific method? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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.
Re:Riiight (Score:5, Informative)
"The Bush administration is clamping down on scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, who study everything from caribou mating to global warming, subjecting them to controls on research that might go against official policy."
The communications office must be notified "of findings or data that may be especially newsworthy, have an impact on government policy, or contradict previous public understanding to ensure that proper officials are notified and that communication strategies are developed.' and finally.... "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."
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, Informative)
Try this one on for size. Your division is supposed to make 20 million dollars selling new improved widgets. You've been telling the main office that they've way underestimated the development and production costs all along. Now the financials this quarter make it undeniable: if they don't pull the plug immediately, the company will lose $20m not make it.
So... the main office lays down a policy that any data going into the SEC filings has be cleansed of information that indicates that their product plans are, financially speaking, a load of bullshit.
Is the business run to guarantee senior management their bonuses, or to make money for the stockholders?
We the people are the United States are the stockolder of US Government Inc. It's fine if management wants to make policy conclusions about the findings, that's their job. But they can't cook the books.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=212172&cid =17270890 [slashdot.org]
> Censoring science for political reasons is nothing short of censorship. I'd love to see a constitutional amendment that explicitly dictates that all science with data can not be censored by any act of government. It apparently isn't covered in the first amendment, since it's not universally considered expression. Why not? Would anyone in sound mind vote